“Officials” Who Sign for MERS: False, Fraudulent, Fabricated, Forged and Void Documents in the Chain

all we have left is the obligation, unsecured and subject to counterclaims etc. MOST IMPORTANT procedurally, it requires a lawsuit by the would-be forecloser in order to establish the terms of the obligation and the security, if any. This means they must make allegations as to ownership of the receivable and prove it — the kiss of death for all would be lenders except investors who funded these transactions.

sirrowan
sirrowan@peoplepc.com

“I just thought of something. I was reading what was posted a few above me regarding MERS own rules. They claim that their “officers” tend to act without authority from MERS and they do not use any records held by MERS etc.

How can this be? How can they be officers then? They aren’t if you ask me. Now wonder all these judges are telling them they are nothing but agents if even that, lol.

But if they were officers, wouldn’t MERS be liable for the actions of their “officers” on behalf of MERS?”

ANSWER from Neil

Sirrowan: GREAT POINT! The answer is that if they have a user ID and password ANYONE can become a “limited signing officer” for MERS.

Sometimes they say they are vice-president, sometimes they use some other official title. But the fact remains that they have no connection with MERS, no employment with MERS, no access to MERS records, and definitely no direct grant of a POA (Power of attorney). It’s a game.

This is why I have repeatedly say that in every securitized chain, particularly in the case of a MERS chain, there are one or more documents that are fabricated, forged or voidable. Whether this rises the level of criminality is up to future courts to determine.

One thing is sure — a party who signs a document that has no authority to sign it in the capacity they are representing has just committed violations of federal and state statute and common law. And the Notary who knew the party was not authorized as represented has committed a violation as well. Most states have statutes that say a bad notarization renders the document void, even if it was recorded. This breaks the chain of title and reverts back to the originating lender (at best) or voids the documents in the originating transaction (at worst).

In either event, the distinction I draw between the obligation (the substance of the transaction caused by the funding of a “loan product”) and the note (which by law is ONLY EVIDENCE of the obligation and the mortgage which is ONLY incident to the note, becomes very important. If the documents (note and mortgage) are void then all we have left is the obligation, unsecured and subject to counterclaims etc. MOST IMPORTANT procedurally, it requires a lawsuit by the would-be forecloser in order to establish the terms of the obligation and the security, if any. This means they must make allegations as to ownership of the receivable and prove it — the kiss of death for all would be lenders except investors who funded these transactions.

121 Responses

  1. Well I definitely liked studying it. This article provided by you is very useful for accurate planning.

  2. On the document that is shown for the assignment the signature was not even real it is attached to the document in a reverse order the computer put it on backwards so the notary can be held for that little discrepancy also.

  3. Another DOCX Assignment for everyone…

    Let’s just cross out the signature line after we signed the wrong name and record it anyways…unbelievable!!!!!

    I will be adding my DOCX assignment (Linda Green/Tywanna Thomas) when I am completed with our Motion for Summary Judgement and Quiet Title action…almost done!!!!!

    http://mylandrecords.appspot.com/pdf/ma015-10019-113/aYLuv7LoxI3/assignment.pdf?actual=1263571965

  4. Kudos Lynn!

    ==================================================
    Lynn Szymoniak, on December 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am Said:

    I am publishing on Fraud Digest today a list of documents prepared by Ron Meharg of DOCX in Alpharetta, GA, showing that the same individuals sign as officers of many different banks – particularly Linda Green, Korell Harp, Jessica Ohde, Linda Thoreson and Tywanna Thomas.

    The signatures vary greatly on many of these documents.

    Clearly, this is a fraud.
    ==================================================

    And I have created a “Digest” of her article below.
    READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:
    X_http://www.frauddigest.com/indictments/AN_OFFICER_OF_TOO_MANY_BANKS.pdf

    AN OFFICER OF TOO MANY BANKS
    Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., January 14, 2010

    In a few foreclosure cases, judges have noticed that the same individual
    appears as an officer of various banks. In several of these cases, the
    judges have dismissed the foreclosure actions and ordered that such
    actions cannot be refiled unless the foreclosing party presents an Affidavit
    with the three-year employment history of the bank “officer.”
    In most of these cases, the Bank has never refiled – presumably unable to
    explain the issue of the same individual appearing as an officer of many
    banks.

    The following cases address this issue:

    Bank of NY v. Mulligan, 2008 NY Slip Op 31501 (U)(June 3, 2008)

    Bank of NY v. Orosco, 2007 NY Slip Op 33818(U)

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 2008 NY Slip Op 50033(U)

    HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, 2007 NY Slip Op 52378 (U), 18 Misc 3d 1102 (A)

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Rose Harris, Index No.
    35549/07, Supreme Court of NY (Brooklyn), February 5, 2008

    HSBC Bank USA v. Perboo, 2008 NY Slip Op 51385 (U), 20 Misc 3d 1117(A):

    DUAL EMPLOYEES

    An individual who falsely claims to be a bank officer – that is, who acts
    without the authorization of the bank – commits fraud. Because mortgage
    assignments are sent repeatedly through the U.S. Mail, the fraud becomes
    the federal offense of mail fraud. If a bank has actually authorized nonemployees
    to use the title of Vice President of the bank on mortgage
    assignments, other issues arise. Banks are highly regulated, as are bank
    relations with affiliated companies.

    CONCLUSION

    In thousands of foreclosure cases, key documents may have been
    fabricated by employees of mortgage servicing companies who have
    falsely held themselves out as bank officers. Because most foreclosures
    are the result of defaults, the validity of these assignments has most often
    gone unchallenged. Almost three million U.S. properties were involved in
    some form of foreclosure action in 2009, a 44% increase from the end of
    2008 to the end of 2009. In 2010, the issue of the validity of Assignment
    is likely to finally come under examination by regulators, courts, lawyers
    and distressed homeowners.

  5. I am publishing on Fraud Digest today a list of documents prepared by Ron Meharg of DOCX in Alpharetta, GA, showing that the same individuals sign as officers of many different banks – particularly Linda Green, Korell Harp, Jessica Ohde, Linda Thoreson and Tywanna Thomas.

    The signatures vary greatly on many of these documents.

    Clearly, this is a fraud.

  6. My situation is totally unreal. I live in a home that I was leasing with option to buy. It got foreclosed on. Went to the court house steps to bid on the property. Figuring I would get a better deal. Had some who would have paid cash for it. Discovered it was filed in the right county and advertised for sale on the wrong court house steps. So, of course the sale never happened. I believed it was already promised to someone else. They didn’t want anyone to bid on it. Called the attorney, told me I had the wrong number after he discovered my complaint.
    I know it was a deliberate act and illegal. Called. and emailed Regions, HUD, BBB, the Attorney and I am taking it to the FBI on tomorrow. BBB, told me Regions say I am not a customer so they could not give me any information. Didn’t know you had to be a customer to bid on a Regions Bank (MERS) foreclosure, Regions called and tried to intimidate me….Can’t be done. Wanted to know how I got my information. Attorney called me and said He would sell it to me. I said sure for whatever you stole it for.
    I discovered the same people signing off on different document with different titles. The person I leased from had several properties. They didn’t foreclose on them at the same time (purchased at the same time same bank) then I discovered one of his properties valued at $136 thousand, sold for $14 thousand.
    The Notary works in the attorneys office as Senior Foreclosure Officer.. illegal. I don’t know why I know what I know sometimes but, I sent him a certified letter addressing certain issues…still haven’t disclosed all I know. I knew the property had been sold already but, to appease me He ran a second foreclosure ad two months later (house already sold mind you) and emails me to let me know. I already knew. This time it is in the right county and on the right court house steps. I go to the sale believing in my gutt it is already sold. He never showed up. I was there from 9:30 am until 4:03 pm. Knowing it would be my work against his, I came with camera in hand and took a picture of every person who cried out a property on the court house steps after asking them about the property I reside in.
    Sent me a tenant in sufferance letter (eviction) yesterday, haven’t been served yet but, never once has anyone asked me about my lease, not once. Had the property manager for the bank come buy and offer to sell me the house for what ever I could qualify for that was 3 months ago. Never heard from him again. I have discovered so many under handed, unethical, illegal practices “Unclean Hands” I refuse to back down. Even though I know the foreclosure was illegal the foreclosure was not against me but, I was not given the opportunity to purchase the property..because it was never offer in the manner of the LAW.
    I have sense found out it was already sold prior to the fake second foreclosure add, the same day of the first foreclosure sale that never happened and transfer to someone else 5 days later.
    I refuse to back down no matter what.

  7. You cannot commit a crime (Fraud) and then use the law of enforcement against you.

  8. On 11/21/09 Mary said:

    “If Assignment of mortgage has been notarized by a person claiming to hold a notary commission in said state, with a fake stamp and witnesses signatures of MERS/Servicer, as officer, does it make the mortgage void, voidable, in-valid and what are the punishments of same?”

    I have the exact same scenario … Does anyone have an answer???

  9. “Holder in Due Course” is not the same as “Holder of the Note”, they are not one and the same. Holder in Due Course has to give “Value” and the Holder of the Note does not.

    Contracts are “private” between two parties only and it is illegel and or fraudulent, to sell, assign, transfer and or set over to anybody without your knowledge and or consent.

    The act becomes “private”! Verses, the de-facto, fraudulent side or absence of title, claim or rights.

  10. If Assignment of mortgage has been notarized by a person claiming to hold a notary commission in said state, with a fake stamp and witnesses signatures of MERS/Servicer, as officer, does it make the mortgage void, voidable, in-valid and what are the punishments of same?

  11. Banks (server) never claim “Holder in Due Course”, Banks can never be a “Holder in Due Course”. UCC 3-302 “Holder in Due Course” , ◦ (c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor.

    Banker making the loan, does NOT loan an ASSET of value [Gold and Silver coinage], but instead loans a DEBT [I.O.U./Promissory Note], and therefore CANNOT qualify as a ‘Holder in Due Course’ [UCC 3-303:1];

    UCC 3-303-1 A holder who is not given value cannot gualify as a “Holder in Due Course”.

    Who give “Value” the purchaser. You do when you give “Value” to the “Promissory Note” yes, you are the “Holder in Due Course”. Not the Banks.

    James

  12. Deontos/All,
    Deontos said:

    “There is an industry publication that is saying the “Pretenders”
    are going to use a “Trustee” to foreclose instead of MERS due
    to recent adverse legal decisions.”

    This is what was done in my case–that is, MERS is not foreclosing, rather a Trustee is. But the “Trustee” that is foreclosing is not the Trustee of the MBS Trust (as far as I know, anyway), the Trustee that is foreclosing is the Trustee listed on my Deed of Trust.

    However, even though the foreclosing Trustee is on my Deed of Trust, the servicer filed a document to “re-appoint” the Trustee as Trustee. I find that odd and still don’t know why they would file such a document. Well, actually, I guess I DO know why they’d file a re-appointment–the document essentially acknowledges that the Trustee on the Deed of Trust was “DE-appointed” Trustee at some point and therefore must be “RE-appointed.”

    So in case all that was confusing, I’ll restate it again with the names of the parties…

    -MERS purported to assign the Deed (in which MERS is named beneficiary/nominee) AND the Note (in which MERS is never mentioned) to my servicer, BAC Home Loans Servicing.

    -BAC then filed the document to “re-appoint” Recontrust as the Trustee despite the fact that Recontrust is already named the Trustee in my Deed of Trust. Again, I think that “re-appointment” is an indication of or an admission to SOMETHING but am not sure exactly what.

    -The Notice of Sale from BAC that ran in the newspaper said that Recontrust was the Trustee. However, BAC also sent me a “Substitute Trustee’s Notice of Sale,” (hitherto the most common type of sale notice in these parts) which named Recontrust as the SUBSTITUTE Trustee. Curiously, this substitute trustee’s notice did not appear in the newspaper.

    My suit for an injunction/TRO named BAC and Recontrust as Defendants, but not MERS. We didn’t name MERS as a Defendant because technically, it was not MERS who was foreclosing. We plan to name them as Defendants in a fraud suit which we will file after we receive a decision on our injunction suit, which is currently stayed pending the decision of a federal judge about allowing its removal to federal court (which is what BAC/Recontrust wants) or remanding it to county court (which is what I want).

  13. J in CO,

    See my post:
    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/#comment-28255

    This is just a snip below. It is from an “industry” publication and to see the whole article YOU HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE. That’s $571.00 per year. “ForeclosureFraud” is trying to raise donations via paypal to subscribe and monitor the industry.

    …”Some Servicers Feel Less Confident about MERS as Courts Increasingly Question Its Ability to Foreclose

    Recent court cases that call into question the ownership of a mortgage loan are forcing servicers to alter their practices and making them less likely to foreclose or appear in court in the name of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Non-agency MBS servicers are adjusting their foreclosure and bankruptcy servicing practices due to the outcomes of… “

  14. That is very interesting.

    That would raise some very interesting points as we have the Trustee of the Trust bringing the action here in CO but the deeds were still to MERS as Beneficiary. I would think if they are listed as a Defendant to clear that possible cloud then what happens to all the assignments in the MERS system?

    The passing of the Deed to MERS and the Note to the Trust with no matching assignment created an issue to begin with so further that now with the MERS tracking system as a Defendant due to litigation concerns?

    Clear Title? Who Needs Clear Title?

    Does anyone have a formal announcement of the change of proof in writing. That would be a good exhibit stuffer for me.

  15. Dan Edstrom,
    usedkarguy,

    Any comments as to why MERS is now being listed
    as Defendant?

    I have heard (consider it hearsay) that this has been
    happening in Calif also.

    There is an industry publication that is saying the “Pretenders”
    are going to use a “Trustee” to foreclose instead of MERS due
    to recent adverse legal decisions.

  16. I find it very interesting that here in Summit County Ohio, MERS USED to be listed as the Plaintiff in foreclosure actions within our court system. NOW, they are always listed as a Defendant. It’s like playing a game of MONOPOLY with my little brother here. When he found himself on the losing end of the game, he simply changed the rules.
    They CANNOT have it both ways.

  17. “Issues in Subprime Litigation: Removal Despite Lack of a Federal Claim”, by Travis P. Nelson. found it on abanet.org. I’m at work, so I can’t quote it, but it’s easy to find…..here it is…..the jist is that, notwithstanding the so called “artful pleading” of defendants “to keep their claims in more favorable state courts, there are valid approaches that bank counsel can take to get the case removed to a more favorable Federal Court”. Be careful, because this is where the big guys swim, and you’re gonna pay big for representation. Read this, although it’s kinda heavy. I DO think it was written prior to the SCOTUS decision allowing State AG’s to sue National Banks.

  18. usedkarguy?
    Is this the “Paper”?

    In Defense of Complete Preemption
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024042
    Paul E. McGreal

    Southern Illinois University at Carbondale – School of Law
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review,
    PENNumbra,
    Vol. 156, p. 147, 2007

    Abstract:
    Recent writings by Professors Gil Seinfeld and Trevor Morrison criticize the Supreme Court’s complete preemption doctrine as misguided and unconstitutional, respectively. Professor Seinfeld suggests reforming the doctrine around field preemption, and Professor Morrison rejects complete preemption as inconsistent with separation of powers. This response defends the Supreme Court’s doctrine as it currently stands: A state law claim arises under federal law (and so may be removed to federal court) when a federal statute both preempts the claim and supplies an exclusive federal remedy. This doctrine is a sensible application of the well-pleaded complaint rule that prevents improper circumvention of federal question jurisdiction.

  19. Martin: That’s nice that you have a judge quoting case law for you. I did not have that luxury. I do remember, however, that National Bank Plainiffs are more comfortable in the Federal Court system (probably because they have (had) the National Bank Act to hide behind. There are reasons, however, to pursue action in the local courts (especially if you have a sympathetic judge on your side).

    There was a white paper I found written by securities lawyers regarding the “artful pleading” of litigants to not cite Federal questions and keep the case in the state courts, where, constitutionally, it was meant to be heard, and making National Bank Plaintiffs nervous. I’ll see if I can find it and post a link.

    For guys like me, where the bench is openly hostile to the “pro-se, subprime” litigant, it seems that the only place to get the causes of action heard is to file the BK and adversarial action.

  20. Martin,

    I got one WORD…………

    Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
    Yeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
    YESSSSSSSSS!!

  21. Martin,
    Great news! Congratulations! The law is on (y)our side!

    This past Friday, I got a bit of news in my own case also. BAC/Recontrust are trying to get the case removed to federal court and we filed an objection to that. Throughout the month of October, it was up for review by a federal judge to make a ruling on whether to hear it in federal or kick it back to state.

    Our attorney got a notice on Friday that the case is currently being stayed pending a decision by the federal court. Our attorney feels that this delay is somewhat unusual but didn’t want to try to read too much into it.

  22. One more thing, on further review, the Judge cited cases from the early 1800’s!

    “The interest of a mortgagee before entry, is not real estate but a personal chattel. The interest in land is inseparable from the debt.”Citing Ellison vs. Daniels, 11 N.H. 274, 275 (1840)”

    Also,
    “see Carpenter vs. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274 (1873) (The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”)

    Talk about standing up for Black Letter Law.

    This could be a real death blow to MERS’s charade.

    Neil, I would love an Amicus Curea to further help me out 🙂

  23. Martin,

    Congrats on your success. Please keep us up to speed, this sounds very interesting and exciting. The court has scheduled a hearing on my issue on the 3rd so hopefully this judge will be as helpful.

    Please forward a copy when you have time.

    Good Job!

  24. Great news on my case,

    Court denied a Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Summary Judgment.

    Although the reason was because the Motion was filed 3 days late, the Judge went further to say that the Motion failed on the merits as well.

    He goes into detail to say how a Note, without endorsement, cannot be assigned by way of assignment of Mortgage, as Plaintiff purported MERS did lawfully.

    I will scan and send it out.

    This is the first Memo from the Judge, hopefully it is a sign of what is to come. Based on this, I am getting more confident about my Motion for Sanctions for Punitive Damages for Fraud on the Court.

  25. Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck – RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado

    http://wp.me/pFWnq-4k

    4closureFraud

  26. Hi guys,

    I was at a small conference yesterday, a bankruptcy Attorney who also works in a group called MASH, Maine Attorneys Saving Homes, and they were responsible this summer for petitioning the State legislature to enact a Foreclosure Mediation Law.

    Basically the law mandates that all Plaintiff’s Certify ownership of the Note and Mortgage before applying for a Foreclosure in Maine and participate in mandatory mediation of an owner occupied home.

    I asked him the question, Who do you mediate with? The Servicer or Investor? He replied the Investor, if a Servicer has to direct any questions regarding a mediated loan modification to an Investor, then he will ask the Court to extinguish the Debt. It appears to be common knowledge that a Servicer has no standing, which is why most actions are now brought by Trustees. The next round after this would be the Standing of the Trustee acting as an agent.

    This was an eye opener, as it is now apparent that most Bankruptcy attorneys are aware of this Servicer fraud on the court.

    If the attorneys begin to question Servicer Standing at the mediation, this would create huge problems for Servicers.

    I thought it was interesting.

  27. Yes Zuerenarah,

    So many changes in our country concern me for our freedom. The courts will be one place we could feel that.

    What ever we as individuals for all of us, what ever our legal issue, especially the sanctity of our homes. As many here know, when this is disturbed, we feel shaken to our core, and it brings out such a sense of drive in us, to protect that security is so innate, and in the same moment brings on such fear, and with the fear, determination.

    I think we all could help one another.

  28. “all we have left is the obligation, unsecured and subject to counterclaims etc. MOST IMPORTANT procedurally, it requires a lawsuit by the would-be forecloser in order to establish the terms of the obligation and the security, if any. This means they must make allegations as to ownership of the receivable and prove it — the kiss of death for all would be lenders except investors who funded these transactons.”

    Above I quote the feature at top. I wonder if anyone can tell me if this is subject to a 20? day time period during which the opposing, foreclosing Plaintiff in my case must declare in court??? I have read similar for NJ but I don’t recall the that it requires a lawsuit, a new one, but yes that makes sense. I am trying emphasis on TRYING to write a motion to dismiss, based on among so many other reasons, Rescinded loan, letters of agreement, prior existing case in process claiming Consumer Fraud, Forgery, TILA RESPA, HOPEA

    Mainly I was told should be that the opposing did not respond to deps nothing. mostly avoided me. I know Neil always says this, and I agree, I have told my self this hearing Neil say KEEP it simple for the last year. That always brought me back to reality.

    But what about damages, can I not mention other issuers and still demand relief? I am really nervous about this.

    Now tonight I looked at a new credit report, my score went way down. More than 100 to 150 points. Wow. There were 3 completely different results with each credit agency. The first had the original Company with 2 account numbers, same $ amount, one closed, one sold and closed. wrong dates.

    Another report said in foreclosure and only mentions the company named after the foreclosure began, with a debt of late fee which is not much higher than a figure given by Litton when they “bought ” the loan the year prior. 2008

    The final report also said
    my previous lender prior to the refi, was not there. Countrywide. I looked back on my mortgage dox for that loan and the liked big time about my income and everything else. My appraised value was less it was pre construction addition. I had equity. There is sooooo much more. these people were playing me for years.through 4 refis. the one was broken up as pre construction for 1/2 and post, than it gets really complicated so I won’t go into that.

    Anyone have an opinion on confining stated cause for dismissal to the basic, failure to respond and dismiss. the jurisdiction can open to time given to provide standing etc. which I know they do not have. but it adds time to my aggravation. Sanctions would apply. Treble Damages on Consumer Fraud. No deed of trust exchanged and returned to me after Countrywide. The same Lender made check to fund Mortgage company and to Payoff. With many thousand $s short of the loan total. Giving more weight to my theory with mention in some but not all, documents Lender paid more than 10.25 percent commision plus the addional 11 or so percent he took. plus high fees for title agent, charged for 2 appraisers, I had already paid one. they charged me again. In the countrywide loan 10 months earlier they charged me for Homeowners, which they did this time, however with the countrywide loan, they neglected to pay the Insurance Co. There are issues with the builder that need to be addressed. Some of that may have needed to go on that insurance. I have to take care of that case after I complete this.

    I mean there is also Breach Deceitful Business Practices, Misrepresentation, Inconcienability, appraisal fraud, the house is worth less than 1/2 the value they appraised it at when they were ditching it a year later. The Credit Compliance Test appears to give away a lot of lies. That company did not respond either. The foreclosing company is mia, I have an inaccurate address, and I looked them up and emailed to get an address, they deny being the company. even though I stopped asking more than a week or 2 ago, I just got another email saying they are not the same company. It is really almost laughable.

    So my question is if I have all of this going on, and I need to bring the parties from the Civil Suit over to Foreclosure Court. which I would like to do the attorney I have over there has missed almost every appt he has made with me. He won’t tell me anything that is going on, and there is a settlement meeting planned. He does not return my calls, or emails, he despite my repeated request never got me an appropriate contract to sign. I have no idea what he thinks or plans on saying and has already said.I feel like I am out of the loop.

    But I am pretty sure he does not know the details and the ins and outs of my case. It’s really completely insane. Or is this normal? I have done so much work on my case it just seems wrong. He missed turning in Check copies of Construction Payments, for Dep requested copies. Then Tne opposing attorney asked for all check copies, including checks to pay prior loan, not their client, and I was going to supply, even though I felt this did not warrant disclosure, she claimed to have asked for these earlier, which I am certain she didn;t, but rather thatn argue,I agreed, and my attorney insisted on taking care of this with my file he had, and he never came through, so the Attorney went to my bank and collected my entire account. That seems such a violation. She asked about every dime I spent. I had nothing at all to hide. It was more about the fact that they went to my Personal Bank account and just took over. My attorney said nothing. he had a scheduled motion, but canceled, or so I think, he will not confirm what the motion was.

    The same attorney tried to force me and I mean forcefully make me with a demanding angry tone, sign the very document at the centre of my forgery claim. She insisted she needed an ink signature on a (blank
    signature space) copy that had been doctored, by their removing the forgery they had placed for their Expert Witness, who “needed” a replica of the Settlement HUD 1 document, for the Closing. Which they did not have because they altered it maybe 7 or so times before placing a signature on the final 6 weeks later prior to filing in Records. It seems obvious too now that there were or could have been multiple loans, or at least dummy documents to send of to a pool. Huge cloud over my Deed. .

    There are multiple parties showing up and the party foreclosing does not have standing jurisdiction. The party is in cahoots with the Party, defendant in my Civil suit. They were subsidiaries. But MERS prepared the whole thing. They filed the Foreclosure then assigned and never served. So already dates are off. First Foreclosing then Assigning. That will hold weight? not to mention the “prior holder” as they have claimed all along, then 6 weeks later assigned to another servicer. That servicer now says they own it. than another did the same. I may have already typed this a couple of nights ago, a bit sleep deprived. When I do make summary request I will include include demand they Quiet the Title. My last question is can I provide the summary of damages at a later date, and say it is coming? just mention briefly its contents? or should I do this ahead.?

    I have to show this the third credit agency It says the following:

    Conventional Real Estate Loan, Including Purchase Money First
    (the money first was to pay off the loans, and some small figure went to me, a couple thousand fewer than they stated. and an additional amount that I still owed the builder, since he was not finished I asked them to hold it so I could make sure he stayed)only the left over change they did not take.

    “Paid. Foreclosure was started”

    one says just closed

    Neil I hope you are feeling much better

    Is that the way it would be termed if they were claiming I actually owed the money?

  29. zunenarrh,

    I think that is a very good idea. It would be good either here or in another format to track our cases and our status so that others can see what we may accomplish as it happens……or no responses are forthcoming.

    I have the local newspaper very interested in tracking my progress. They will be sitting in on my initial hearing in case I run into resistance from the Court and can at least bear witness.

    We need more JUDGES that get it and each of us have the chance to help them get it in each district in which we file. The more that know the better it will get.

    As for briefs, If it helps and someone can help illuminate the merits etc, I am in.

  30. TO MARTIN

    Hi, I am probably way off, so I will make it brief.

    What about Jurisdiction and e- financial/recording and fraud…

    http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=28975&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or

    R v. Thompson 79 Cr App R 191

    lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

    Page 1
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    COUNTY OF RAMSEY
    DISTRICT COURT
    SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    FAMILY COURT DIVISION
    CASE TYPE: 04: DISSOLUTION WITH
    CHILDREN
    In Re the Marriage of:
    S. K. H.,
    Petitioner,
    and
    J. E. F.,
    Respondent.
    PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM WITH
    REGARD TO DISQUALIFICATION OF
    COUNSEL
    SYNOPSIS
    The Judgment and Decree filed in this matter on 3 August 2000 granted Petitioner sole physical
    custody of the minor children of the parties. In March of 2005, Respondent filed an ex parte motion
    seeking temporary physical custody of the children. In November of 2005, Petitioner took leave from her
    employment under the FMLA to care for the mental health needs of the children. Petitioner’s employer
    took retaliatory action against her and Petitioner was unemployed for nine months. The combination of
    loss of income and legal fees resulted in Petitioner’s losing her home to foreclosure.
    Following an evidentiary hearing, the court entered an order on 26 July 2006 awarding sole
    physical custody of the children to Respondent. In March of 2007, Petitioner served Respondent with an
    Order to Show Cause and Notice of Motion and Motion for Contempt, based on Respondent’s non-
    compliance with multiple provisions of this Court’s order of 26 July 2006. Respondent’s attorney failed
    to appear for the show cause hearing. Subsequently, following a telephone hearing, the parties
    stipulated to the appointment of a custody evaluator with power to bind the parties to her
    recommendations, and an order was entered thereupon on 8 June 2007.
    Page 2
    2
    On 27 July 2008, the custody evaluator placed H. with Petitioner and E. with Respondent. On 29
    December 2008, the Guardian ad Litem requested the Court immediately award custody of E. to
    Petitioner for educational and psychological neglect. Following a telephone hearing, the Court Found E.
    was endangered and entered an order granting Petitioner sole physical custody on 27 January 2009.
    ARGUMENT
    1. The right to counsel of one’s own choosing is a constitutional matter of due process.
    As early as 1932, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the right to counsel
    of one’s own choosing and employ is not confined to criminal matters subject to the Sixth
    Amendment, but also exists in civil cases as a matter of due process, derived from the Fifth and
    Fourteenth Amendments. “If in any case, civil of criminal, a state or federal court were
    arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it
    reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and,
    therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.” Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45,
    69 (1932). “*T+he Supreme Court has indicated in its criminal decisions that the right to retain
    counsel in civil litigation is implicit in the concept of Fifth Amendment due process.” Potashnick
    v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1117 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 820 (1980).
    “*T]he right to counsel is one of constitutional dimensions and should thus be freely exercised
    without impingement.” Id. at 1118. “Parties normally have the right to counsel of their choice,
    so long as the counsel satisfy required bar admissions . . .” Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of
    Idaho, 366 F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir. 2004). One writer has noted that the relative silence of the
    Constitution on the right to counsel in civil matters stems from the already firm establishment of
    that right in English law. “Because English practice had recognized the right to retain civil
    counsel, there was no need to reaffirm the prerogative.” Note, “The Right to Counsel in Civil
    Litigation”, 66 Colum.L.Rev. 1322, 1327 (1966).
    Page 3
    3
    The First Amendment right to freedom of association is implicated in the choice of
    counsel as well. The Fifth Circuit, in a disqualification case, held that “these rights are important
    ones and will yield only to an overriding public interest.” In re Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 268 (5th
    Cir. 1976). “[O]ne of the most important associational freedoms that a person may have [is] the
    right to choose one’s own lawyer.” Kusch v. Ballard, 645 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. App. 4th Dist.,
    1994) (Farmer, J., concurring). Disqualification “serves to destroy a relationship by depriving a
    party of representation of their own choosing.” Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689
    F.2d 715, 722 (7th Cir. 1982). It “separates the client from his chosen counsel, causes delay, and
    may subject both the client and the disqualified lawyer to significant economic hardship.”
    Jenson v. Touche Ross, 335 N.W.2d 720, 722 (1983). “The attorney is the client’s choice.
    Disqualification is wasteful and time-consuming.” Board of Education of New York City v.
    Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1247 (2nd Cir. 1979).
    2. Disqualification is a drastic remedy and should only be utilized when no other
    options exist.
    Disqualification is “a drastic measure which courts should hesitate to impose except
    when absolutely necessary.” Jenson, 335 N.W.2d at 721. “It is well settled that disqualification
    of a party’s chosen counsel is (1) a harsh and drastic remedy, (2) should be resorted to sparingly,
    and (3) must find its basis in counsel’s violation of some rule of law or breach of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility resulting in an unfair advantage.” Kusch, 645 So. 2d at 1040
    (Stevenson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). “[D]isqualification is warranted only
    rarely in cases where there is neither a serious question as to counsel’s ability to act as a zealous
    and effective advocate for the client … nor a substantial possibility of an unfair advantage to the
    current client because of counsel’s prior representation of the opposing party … Except in cases
    of truly egregious misconduct likely to infect future proceedings, other means less prejudicial to
    the client’s interest than disqualifying the counsel of her choice are ordinarily available.” Koller
    Page 4
    4
    v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 737 F.2d 1038, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “The decision to disqualify an
    attorney chosen by a party to represent him in a lawsuit is of serious concern and the court’s
    inherent power to do so should only be exercised where the integrity of the adversary process is
    threatened. Even then, the court should not act ‘unless the offending attorney’s conduct
    threatens to taint the underlying trial’ with serious ethical violation.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
    v. Amundson, 682 F.Supp. 981, 987 (D. Minn. 1988), citing Beck v. Board of Regents of the State
    of Kansas, 568 F. Supp. 1107, 1110 (D. Kan. 1983). “*A+n order granting disqualification seriously
    disrupts the progress of the litigation and decisively sullies the reputation of the affected
    attorney.” Fleischer v. Phillips, 264 F.2d 515, 517 (2nd Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1002
    (1959).
    3. Motions for disqualification are subject to strict scrutiny.
    “Because of the potential for abuse by opposing counsel, disqualification motions
    should be subjected to particularly strict judicial scrutiny.” Harker v. C.I.R., 82 F.3d 806, 808 (8th
    Cir. 1996) Motions for disqualification “should be viewed with extreme caution for they can be
    misused as techniques of harassment.” Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F.2d at
    722.
    4. Rule 3.7(a) only applies to advocacy at trial.
    By its plain language, the operation of Rule 3.7(a) is limited to advocacy at trial. Writing
    in the September 6, 1999 issue of Minnesota Lawyer, Martin A. Cole, then Senior Assistant
    Director and now Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, called this an
    “often-misunderstood aspect of Rule 3.7” and wrote that “[v]irtually all authorities agree that
    even a lawyer who knows he is likely to be a necessary witness at trial is not prohibited from
    handling that matter throughout investigation, discovery and settlement negotiations, with
    Page 5
    5
    client consent. See, e.g., ABA Inf. Op. 89-1529 (1989); Pa. Ethics Op. 96-15 (1996).” “Lawyer-As-
    Witness Rule Often Misunderstood,” retrieved from
    http://www.mncourts.gov/lprb/fc99/fc090699.html.
    Accordingly, counsel’s present objection to your writer’s representation of Petitioner on
    the grounds of Rule 3.7(a) is barred by the plain language of the rule.
    5. Respondent has not met his burden for securing an evidentiary hearing.
    Not only is this matter not ripe for adjudication because we are not at trial, but there is
    no certainty that a trial will be held, because Respondent has not met his burden for securing an
    evidentiary hearing. Whether or not to allow an evidentiary hearing lies within the discretion of
    the Court and the Court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Geibe v.
    Geibe, 571 N.W.2d 774, 777 (Ct. App. 1997). The party seeking an evidentiary hearing must
    submit an affidavit asserting facts which, if true, would support modification. Id. The allegations
    in the affidavit must be supported by specific, credible evidence. Axford v. Axford, 402 N.W.2d
    143, 145 (Ct. App. 1987); see also Smith v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 222, 227 (Ct. App. 1993).
    Respondent has alleged no facts at all, let alone facts supported by specific, credible
    evidence.1 “*B+are allegations and conclusory pronouncements” do not suffice to support an
    argument, Woodruff v. State, 608 N.W.2d 881 (2000). The reports of the custody evaluator and
    Guardian ad Litem lend no support to Respondent’s allegations and tend to discredit them. If
    the party seeking an evidentiary hearing does not meet their burden, the Court need not grant
    an evidentiary hearing. Roehrdanz v. Roehrdanz, 438 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Ct. App. 1989), review
    denied (June 21, 1989).
    6. Rule 3.7(a) applies to a lawyer who is likely to be a “necessary witness.

    Actually this might help me in my case. Well it was a bit more than I expected once I went shopping for material
    it is not brief!

  31. Martin,
    Zurenarrh/eggsistense here. I got your documents and am reading them over. Nice job!

    It occurred to me as I was reading–and I direct this question to the group–is there any way we can help each other in court, like filing an amicus curiae brief or something? I know very little about that particular procedure, but if there were anything that we could all do in court to back each other up, it might serve to let the judge know that “Hey, these borrowers aren’t bad people and aren’t trying to waste the court’s time with frivolous arguments–these are real and substantive issues, so say we, the undersigned.”

    Just a thought.

    Or maybe we could target letters to the editor of the newspapers in the towns where Living Lies forum members are having cases heard, timing them to be run a little before any scheduled hearing so that the public (i.e., judges) can be exposed to the issues from a true (i.e., our) perspective.

    Because there are only a couple things holding us back from total victory:

    1. Ignorance–neither judges nor the public have any idea about the true nature of this insidious deception and people can’t do anything about problems they’re not even aware of and/or don’t really understand

    2. Years of conditioning–people have always and only ever heard the bankers’ side of the story in the media, in the schools, and just about everywhere else. If we can start to slowly but surely get people (especially judges, natch) to question their conditioning, there won’t be a problem–the law is on our side, after all

  32. Martin,

    I have been on the same track as what you are experiencing. They specifically assign the notes to blank on purpose which the court should look at anyway as questionable practice. It’s not like they don’t know where the loan is going before they do the assignment.

    They additionally, at the exact same time they endorse the note to Blank, record the change in ownership on the MERS system. Even for the normal layman that is beyond common sense considering they are supposed to run together.

    They also seem to, once again as standard practice, lose or shred the original notes. I am guessing they do the assignment to blank so that if they can’t find the note and they have to produce it they can make one appear without having to reacquire it from the other sucker they sold it to for more money.

    We all need to fight this very thing and get enough cases in front of every judge in the country and make sure that the rulings keep coming back the way we need them to. The more success we have the better it will be for those behind us that are still holding on and staying current.

    Most of us by sharing have enough information at our disposal to support others in this and as far as I see it there is enough question being raised and enough focus on this problem that it will not easily be swept under the rug by politicians.

    I agree that everyone needs to focus on their legal rights and know that even if it seems like a daunting task it needs to be done so that it will not affect the next three generations of homeowners as well.

  33. I will scan my stuff and send it out soon.

    Zuerenarah,

    The Note, in my case, was never executed to MERS, it was to Americas Wholesale Lender.

    The mortgage was executed to MERS as nominee to AML.

    The Motion for Summary Judgment purported to assign the Note via a Mortgage assignment from MERS to Countrywide Home Loans,Inc. Some 2 years after execution.

    This is where I caught their SLIGHT OF HAND. They try to fool the Court using MERS….even though the Note was never close to being in their name.

    As far as UCC goes…this type of behavior is a mockery of the UCC system and Judicial system, quite frankly I think the Judge is embarrassed for the Plaintiff and he should be.

    Now the Plaintiff is backpeddling on previously submitted Pleadings…essentially saying that “Now that we were caught…this is just how we do it Your Honor…we had the Note in Blank the whole time through our layered operation and Trade name….Just give us the house please.”

    We cannot let this behavior go unpunished….everyone needs to work together and file their own Pleadings IF YOU CANNOT FIND A LAWYER THAT GETS IT.

    We need to think and act positive and confident. Thoughts become Reality. We are on the Good Side. Believe it!

  34. dny,

    I firmly believe both decisions are bad case law. The reasoning by the judges makes no sense in light of recent developments. The 3rd DCA’s opinion is very short and ill-reasoned.

    I do not know if the court was made aware of the Nebraska decision, however, April Charney wrote an amicus curiae. I’m sure she was aware of the Nebraska case and must have brought it to light in her brief.

    Furthermore, the 3rd DCA relied on the same case law that the VA judge found unpersuasive.

    I absolutely love the way the VA judge took each word individually and traced back the definitions. By doing so, the judge showed the duplicity in MERS’s arguments. Wish other judges would do the same. The judge defined “legal title” and “equitable title” brilliantly stating that MERS held only legal title not equitable title.

    In rebuking the In Re Huggins decision, the VA judge wrote, “The Court declines to accept this logic, as it ignores black letter mortgage law. In general, a mortgage is unenforceable if it is held by one who has no right to enforce the secured obligation. Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages § 5.4 cmt. e.” BEAUTIFUL!!!

    All a judge has to do is READ what MERS writes in their pleadings and briefs. MERS is inconsistent throughout.

  35. excellent reading

    Abstract:
    At the roots of the worst recession since the Great Depression were unaffordable home mortgages packaged into securities, sold to investors, and used as capital assets by financial institutions. The process of securitization, as well as financial institution over-leveraging associated with it, has been well documented and explored. However, there is one company that was a party to more questionable loans and foreclosures than any other and yet has received virtually no attention in the academic literature. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly referred to as “MERS,” is the recorded owner of over half of the nation’s residential mortgages. MERS operates a computer database designed to track servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans anywhere in the United States. But, it also acts as a proxy for the real parties in interest in county land title records. Most importantly, MERS is also filing foreclosure lawsuits on behalf of financiers against hundreds of thousands of American families. This Article explores the legal and public policy foundations of this odd, but extremely powerful, company that is so attached to America’s financial destiny. It begins with a brief explanation of the origins of the county real property recording systems and the law governing real property liens. Then, it explains how MERS works, why mortgage bankers created the company, and what MERS has done to transform the underlying assumptions of state real property recording law. Next, it explores controversial doctrinal issues confronting MERS and the companies that have relied on it, including (1) whether MERS actually has standing to bring foreclosure actions; (2) whether MERS should be considered a debt collector under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (3) whether loans recorded in MERS’ name should have priority in various collateral competitions under state law and the federal bankruptcy code. The article culminates in a discussion of MERS’ culpability in fostering the mortgage foreclosure crisis and what the long term effects of privatized land title records will have on our public information infrastructure. The Article concludes by considers whether the mortgage banking industry, in creating and embracing MERS, has subverted the democratic governance of the nation’s real property recording system.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1469749

  36. And we know that “holder” doesn’t necessarily mean “owner,” which MERS would have to be to execute assignments of mortgages (together with a transfer of the underlying note).

    Were the Judges in the FL 3rd DCA case made aware of the Nebraska case? Or the South Carolina case?

    Thanks.

  37. To clarify one more point, Cabrera and Reverado are the same case. In the state court level, the case was cited as Cabrera. However, when the state court cases were consolidated on appeal, Reveredo became the lead case and therefore the appellate decision is cited as MERS v. Reveredo.

  38. dny,

    Your recollection is correct. In the 2nd DCA decision which was decided first, the judges did not rule on the issue of whether MERS was the owner and holder of the note. However, in the 3rd DCA decision, the judges did rule on this issue and concluded that MERS was the “holder (by deliver) of the note.”[fn2]

    btw, MERS cites the 3rd DCA (MERS v. Reveredo) ruling in just about every one of its pleadings. This is often quoted on MERS website and in its pleadings, “there is no reason why mere form should overcome the salutary substance of permitting the use of this commercially effective means of business.”

  39. Alina: With regard to the two FL Appeals cases you’ve mentioned, I recall that, in addition to the defendants not answering, MERS was not challenged about its ownership of underlying notes, and the courts specifically reserved judgement on that issue. I may be wrong, but that’s my recollection, and if MERS was challenged on the ownership of notes issue, the Nebraska and several other state court decisions could be cited. I think the outcome could be very different, even in Florida. In any event, one of the results of these 2 FL DCA decisions is that MERS has pretty much stopped bringing foreclosure actions in FL, instead opting for pre-foreclosure (fraudulent) assignments to non-party servicers which can be challenged. I don’t think the DCA decisions you’ve cited would adversely impact such a challenge. This is my non-lawyer, uneducated, uninformed and unreliable thinking on this.

  40. Martin refers to MERS v. Cabrera Judge Gordon) whose decision was overturned by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals. I believe that decision is posted somewhere on this site.

    In Florida, there were two lower court Judges (Judge Logan and Judge Gordon) who sua sponte dismissed several foreclosures brought by MERS in its own name. Both judges’ decisions were overturned on appeal.

    Judge Logan’s decision was the first to be overturned by the Second District Court of Appeals. I have a copy of MERS appellate brief in that case. The appellate briefs filed by MERS in the Nebraska case and the appellate brief filed in the Azize case are in direct conflict.

    In Azize, MERS argues that it is the “Holder” of the Note and therefore it is the “real party in interest” and has the right to foreclose.

    From the Cabrera appellate decision (3rd DCA) we get this little gem, “the problem arises from the difficulty of attempting to shoehorn a modern innovative instrument of commerce into nomenclature and legal categories which stem essentially from the medieval English land law.”

    NOTE: In neither of the 2 Florida cases did the defendants file an answer. The trial court judges (Logan and Gordon) issued their decisions sua sponte.

    I am so glad that there are judges such as this one in Virginia that are ruling based on black letter mortgage law rather. Just wish there were more judges like that out there.

    Unfortunately, in Florida, we have to live with these badly reasoned appellate decisions. We need a great case to overturn this.

    P.S. the attorney who wrote the appellate brief in the Azize case is the same attorney who is defending the federal action I have brought against MERS and the other clowns in my case.

  41. I have MERS appellate brief in the Nebraska case if anyone wants it. Very interesting reading. Great stuff for a “judicial estoppel” argument in any case in which MERS is attempting to foreclose in its own name.

    Send me an email if you would like a copy of the appellate brief.

    Alina
    virani0786@yahoo.com

  42. Tracee,

    I think there are few pieces still missing. As this thread is starting to take an interesting direction you can email me and that helps keep the posts cleaner. My email is jbrode@mac.com.

    You are onto something and as such may have a hole to use to unwind something.

  43. I wanted to post a question for the specific cases in which MERS is known to not have a right such as the case would be here in Colorado. The foreclosure actions here are all brought by the trustee but the deeds are still assigned to MERS as Nominee.

    Does anyone have knowledge of cases in which the action to assign the Deed, which is technically an unnecessary action if they are not able to bring the foreclosure, voids the security interest?

    My case shows the Deed going to MERS as Nominee and the Note has been through the war with two of the lenders filing BK in the process. If the Deed has been pledged to a company for the sole purpose of fraudulent concealment of the true lender and the originating lender made a blank assignment as admitted in the Seller’s Guide, would the security still have any standing?

    Since we have no real possibility of MERS ever having the ability to foreclose and the assignments never happen correctly(which I’m waiting for them to prove were even done) or were to blank as noted how could they show they still have a security interest? Did MERS register the Deed to Blank to follow with the assignment to Blank?

    If there are any cases in which this has been addressed it would be helpful to have another argument if I end up with a hearing this week. I wonder what it will look like when the house of cards starts to fall?

    Thank to everyone for your input, it is very helpful!

  44. 2nd CASE: MERS kicked to the curb just outside the Courthouse Door
    ……..Lack of Standing
    ………DEFAULT VACATED AND CASE DISMISSED

    Kansas and Nebraska cited as precedence. Good
    legal reading.

    ============================================

    CASE2:
    http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/TCDecisionCvl/2009-11-3-1.pdf

    STATE OF VERMONT
    RUTLAND COUNTY

    Rutland Superior Court
    Docket No. 420-6-09 Rdcv

    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
    REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS),
    as Nominee for WMC MORTGAGE CORP.,

    Plaintiff,
    v.

    FRANK S. JOHNSTON and
    ELLEN L. JOHNSTON, UNITED STATES
    OF AMERICA INTERNAL REVENUE
    SERVICE, and ANY OTHER OCCUPANTS
    OF [Redacted]
    (n/k/a [Redacted])
    WALLINGFORD, VERMONT,

    Defendants

    ORDER
    Plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s foreclosure action is DISMISSED for lack of standing. Accordingly, the Court’s Order, issued August 27, 2009, granting plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against the defendants Frank and Ellen Johnston is VACATED. The dismissal of the foreclosure action is without prejudice as to allow the proper plaintiff to come forward.

    Furthermore, because this is a case of first impression under Vermont law and because it involves important issues concerning mortgage law and real estate title law, the Court will certify the issue of standing to the Vermont Supreme Court pursuant to V.R.C.P. 80.1(m).

    Dated at Rutland, Vermont this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
    ____________________
    Hon. William Cohen
    Superior Court Judge

  45. MERS kicked to the curb just outside the Courthouse Door
    ……..Lack of Standing

    Kansas and Nebraska cited as precedence. Good
    legal reading.

    =====================================

    Full File: CASE1
    http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/TCDecisionCvl/2009-10-29-1.pdf

    SNIP……………………….

    STATE OF VERMONT
    RUTLAND COUNTY

    US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION, ) Rutland Superior Court
    As Trustee for MASTR Asset Backed ) Docket No. 466-6-09 Rdcv
    Securities Trust, 2006-WMC2

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    PETER JAY WYMAN,
    JOANNA LYN WYMAN
    a/k/a JOANNA LYN L. WYMAN,
    CITIFINANCIAL, INC., and OCCUPANTS
    RESIDING at [Redacted],
    RUTLAND, VERMONT

    Defendants

    Thus, plaintiff has provided no evidence that it is entitled to enforce the
    instrument pursuant to 9A V.S.A. § 3-301. Even if the Court were to accept the plead assignment of the Mortgage Deed from MERS to plaintiff as fact, the Court cannot allow the assignee of only a security interest to enforce the mortgage deed, as this could expose
    the obligor to a double liability; a “person entitled to enforce,” 9A V.S.A. § 3-301, could later rightly seek to enforce the unsecured obligation.

    Furthermore, because plaintiff has not provided the purported assignment of the Note and Mortgage Deed from MERS to itself, there is no evidence that plaintiff has even been assigned the Mortgage Deed. As such, the plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
    is denied. Since this is a matter involving title to property, this Court is obligated to ensure that the plaintiff is the real party in interest. Failure by a plaintiff mortgagee to show that it has standing to bring a foreclosure action could create title issues for future
    unsuspecting purchase of land.

    Order
    PLAINTIFF shall have 30 days to provide proof that it was assigned the Mortgage Deed and that it is entitled to enforce the Promissory Note pursuant to 9A V.S.A. § 3-301, otherwise the Court shall dismiss PLAINTIFF’S action for lack of standing.

    Dated at Rutland, Vermont this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
    ____________________
    Hon. William Cohen

  46. I think I found it.

    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
    appellant, v. Nebraska Department of
    Banking and Finance, appellee.
    Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys. v. Nebraska Dept. of Banking,
    270 Neb. 529

    Filed October 21, 2005. No. S-04-786.

    1. Administrative Law: Judgments: Appeal and Error. A judgment or final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

    Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John A. Colborn, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

    James M. Pfeffer and Joseph T. Breckenridge, of Abrahams, Kaslow & Cassman, L.L.P., for appellant.

    Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Fredrick F. Neid for appellee.

    Hendry, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

    Gerrard, J.

    NATURE OF CASE
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), appealed an order of the Department of Banking and Finance (the Department), declaring that MERS is a “mortgage banker” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-702 (Reissue 2004) and therefore subject to the license and registration requirements of the Mortgage Bankers Registration and Licensing Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 45-701 et seq. (Reissue 2004). The district court affirmed the order, and MERS appealed. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that MERS is not a mortgage banker as defined by the Act and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the district court.

    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    MERS is a private corporation that administers the MERS System, a national electronic registry that tracks the transfer of ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. Through the MERS System, MERS becomes the mortgagee of record for participating members through assignment of the members’ interests to MERS. MERS is listed as the grantee in the official records maintained at county register of deeds offices. The lenders retain the promissory notes, as well as the servicing rights to the mortgages. The lenders can then sell these interests to investors without having to record the transaction in the public record. MERS is compensated for its services through fees charged to participating MERS members.

    MERS filed a petition with the Department, requesting a declaratory order that MERS is not a “mortgage banker” under § 45-702(6) and therefore not subject to the license and registration requirements of the Act. At the hearing before the director of the Department, the parties narrowed the issue to whether MERS directly or indirectly “acquires” mortgage loans within the meaning of the Act. The Department concluded that MERS is a mortgage banker under the Act and is therefore required to obtain a mortgage banker’s license from the Department pursuant to § 45-705.

    MERS filed a petition for review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court affirmed the order of the Department, and MERS appealed.

    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

    MERS assigns, summarized and restated, that the district court erred in affirming the order of the Department, finding that MERS “acquires” mortgage loans and is, therefore, a “mortgage banker” subject to the requirements of the Act.

    STANDARD OF REVIEW

    [1] A judgment or final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Troshynski v. Nebraska State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy, ante p. 347, 701 N.W.2d 379 (2005).

    ANALYSIS

    MERS assigns that the district court erred in affirming the Department’s order finding MERS to be a “mortgage banker” subject to the license and registration requirements of the Act. Pursuant to the Act, persons acting as or using the title of “mortgage banker” may not do so without first obtaining a license or registering with the Department under the Act or obtaining a license under the Nebraska Installment Loan Act. § 45-705(1). Section 45-702(6) defines “mortgage banker” as

    any person not exempt under section 45-703 who, for compensation or gain or in the expectation of compensation or gain, directly or indirectly makes, originates, services, negotiates, acquires, sells, arranges for, or offers to make, originate, service, negotiate, acquire, sell, or arrange for ten or more mortgage loans in a calendar year.
    Section 45-702(8) states that “[m]ortgage loan means any loan or extension of credit secured by a lien on real property, including a refinancing of a contract of sale or an assumption or refinancing of a prior loan or extension of credit.” In this case, the parties agree that the inquiry is limited to whether MERS “acquires” mortgage loans under § 45-702(6). Further, although § 45-703 contains several exemptions to the Act, the parties agree that MERS does not fall under any of the exemptions.
    In its order, the district court accurately characterized MERS’ services as follows:

    The MERS system was created to facilitate the transfer of ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. Under the System, MERS serves as mortgagee of record for participating members through assignment of the members’ interests to MERS. Mortgage lenders participate in the MERS System as members upon completion of a membership application.
    The district court went on to discuss the elements of the contract between MERS and its members, referring specifically to a document entitled, “Terms and Conditions,” that states, in part:
    The Member, at its own expense, shall promptly, or as soon as practicable, cause MERS to appear in the appropriate public records as the mortgagee of record with respect to each mortgage loan that the Member registers on the MERS® System. MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect to all such mortgage loans solely as a nominee, in an administrative capacity, for the beneficial owner or owners thereof from time to time. MERS shall have no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans. MERS agrees not to assert any rights (other than rights specified in the Governing Documents) with respect to such mortgage loans or mortgaged properties.
    The document also states that “MERS shall at all times comply with the instructions of the beneficial owner of mortgage loans as shown on the MERS® System.”
    MERS argues that it does not acquire mortgage loans and is therefore not a mortgage banker under § 45-702(6) because it only holds legal title to members’ mortgages in a nominee capacity and is contractually prohibited from exercising any rights with respect to the mortgages (i.e., foreclosure) without the authorization of the members. Further, MERS argues that it does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages and has no right to payments made on the notes. MERS explains that it merely “immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.” Brief for appellant at 12.

    The Department argues that MERS, through the assignment of lenders’ interests in mortgage loans, indirectly acquires mortgage loans and therefore falls within the scope of the Act. The Department further asserts that a loan and corresponding mortgage or deed of trust are inextricably intertwined and that, accordingly, the interests acquired by MERS are interests in mortgage loans, making MERS a mortgage banker subject to the requirements of the Act.

    At the hearing before the Department, documents were offered and received into evidence, and the attorneys for both parties presented arguments before the hearing officer. During the hearing, counsel for the Department described MERS’ function in the mortgage industry:

    Mortgage lenders hire MERS to act as their nominee for mortgages, which allows the lenders to trade the mortgage note and servicing rights on the market without recording subsequent trades with the various register of deeds throughout Nebraska.
    To execute a MERS Mortgage, the borrower conveys the mortgage to MERS, who is acting as a contractual nominee. MERS becomes the recorded grantee, however, the lender retains the note and servicing right. The lender can then sell that note and servicing rights on the market and MERS records each transaction electronically on its files. When the mortgage loan is repaid, MERS, as agent grantor, conveys the property to the borrower. MERS represents that this system saves the lender and the consumer the transaction costs that would be associated with manually recording every transaction.
    Subsequently, counsel for MERS explained that MERS does not take applications, underwrite loans, make decisions on whether to extend credit, collect mortgage payments, hold escrows for taxes and insurance, or provide any loan servicing functions whatsoever. MERS merely tracks the ownership of the lien and is paid for its services through membership fees charged to its members. MERS does not receive compensation from consumers. The Department does not take issue with this characterization of MERS’ services.
    Documents offered during the Department hearing support the limited nature of MERS’ services. The hearing officer received several documents into evidence from the MERS website providing example forms for naming MERS as the original mortgagee of a mortgage or deed of trust or for assigning mortgages to MERS. The form naming MERS as original mortgagee of a mortgage states:

    Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns of MERS, the following described property . . . .
    (Emphasis omitted.) Similarly, the document naming MERS as original mortgagee of a deed of trust states:
    The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS.
    (Emphasis omitted.) Both documents go on to state:
    Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.
    Although we agree with the district court’s characterization of the services provided by MERS and its contractual relationship with its members, we conclude that such services are not equivalent to acquiring mortgage loans, as defined by the Act. In other words, through its services to its members as characterized by the district court, MERS does not acquire “any loan or extension of credit secured by a lien on real property.” MERS does not itself extend credit or acquire rights to receive payments on mortgage loans. Rather, the lenders retain the promissory notes and servicing rights to the mortgage, while MERS acquires legal title to the mortgage for recordation purposes.
    MERS serves as legal title holder in a nominee capacity, permitting lenders to sell their interests in the notes and servicing rights to investors without recording each transaction. But, simply stated, MERS has no independent right to collect on any debt because MERS itself has not extended credit, and none of the mortgage debtors owe MERS any money. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that MERS does not acquire mortgage loans, as defined in § 45-702(8), and therefore, MERS is not subject to the requirements of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

    The district court erred in affirming the judgment of the Department finding MERS to be a mortgage banker under the Act. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand the cause to the district court with directions to reverse the determination made by the Department.

    Reversed and remanded with directions.

  47. MERS NEVER EVER OWNS A NOTE. By there own admission.

    I can’t remember the case. Might have been in Nebraska Mers lost, they admitted to the court that they never own a note.

    I will try and research tomorrow.

  48. OK, I don’t mean to post so much, but I’ve got to get this down and I want to be clear…

    Correct me if I’m wrong on any of these points…

    The problem with MERS being “the noteholder for the purpose of foreclosing the loan” is this:

    The proceeds of the Note were never due to MERS, that is, the borrower never had to pay MERS. The borrower never got, never gets a monthly bill from MERS.

    Therefore, THERE WAS NO DEFAULT TO MERS. There can NEVER be default to MERS, ESPECIALLY since MERS, according to its own procedural manual, never “holds the Note” until AFTER the borrower’s “default” TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN MERS (I suppose there could be a default to MERS if it were the holder in due course at some point over the life of the loan, but THAT NEVER HAPPENS).

    There also can NEVER be default to MERS because once it supposedly becomes the Noteholder, MERS never attempts to collect any money from the borrower.

    Therefore, since money is NEVER due to MERS, and MERS makes no attempts at collection once it supposedly becomes the Noteholder, default to MERS is impossible. And foreclosure can only be undertaken if there is borrower default vis a vis THE PARTY TO WHOM MONEY IS OWED at some point PRIOR TO the default.

    When a party–in good faith, for value, and without notice of default–takes a Note endorsed in blank (i.e., “bearer paper”), the good faith expectation is that there will be future payments on the Note and that such payments are then due to said party. That’s standard procedure and is the law.

    MERS turns this completely upside down–when it takes bearer paper, it KNOWS for certain there will not be any future payments because the only reason it would ever be allowed to take bearer paper is if “default” to a party other than MERS has already occurred.

    Having taken the bearer paper in bad faith, MERS then immediately moves to steal houses. It doesn’t give the borrower a chance to make any payments because it knows for certain that no payments will be forthcoming. Essentially, MERS’ argument is this: “Mr. Borrower, I just got a magic piece of paper that says you now owe ME money–not the guy you were supposed to pay immediately before I got the magic paper. But you and I both already know that you aren’t going to pay, so therefore, I get to take your house.”

    OK, starting to babble…it’s late, I’m tired. Sorry if I’m over-posting…

  49. Martin,
    I’m reading the Florida case you posted and my head is about to explode…

    The judge is reading the MERS foreclosure procedures to the MERS lawyer. The MERS procedure says this:

    “By virtue of having the servicer’s employees be the certified officers of MERS, there can be an in-house transfer or possession of the Note so that MERS is considered the noteholder for the purposes of foreclosing the loan.”

    That was what made me feel like my head was about to explode. In this one sentence of its procedural manual, MERS is essentially acknowledging and arguing the following scenario:

    -Borrower never owed money or was required to make a payment to MERS
    -MERS never had beneficial interest in the mortgage
    -MERS has not and will not take a loss on the borrower’s “default”
    -MERS was never the noteholder
    -However, once MERS is “assigned” the mortgage by employees of the servicer who act as employees of MERS, MERS can take your house despite all of the above

    That is UNBELIEVABLE–here’s MERS’ whole argument in one sentence: “We never loaned you a dime and you never owed us any money, but now we just came into possession of a piece of paper that says we can take your house.”

    And that last part of the sentence–“MERS is considered the noteholder for the purpose of foreclosing the loan”– confirms what exactly what Martin said below: THEY OPENLY ADMIT IT, “it” being that MERS assignments are not in good faith, for value, or without notice of default–the assignments are SOLELY for foreclosure purposes in the hopes that the borrower is ignorant enough to fall for it and not pursue matters any further up the securitization chain!

    I know this isn’t necessarily news to regular readers/posters here, but my God, IT BEARS REPEATING! Over and over! Even though I already know what is going on, it takes me aback every time I read about it–the chasm of deception just looks deeper every time I look into it.

    No wonder judges and attorneys don’t “get it”–it would be completely unbelievable IF MERS DIDN’T OPENLY ADMIT IT!

  50. I forgot to mention the POA given to Citi was dated Sept. 6, 2007…four months later…

  51. J:

    I looked a little closer at my “Limited” Power of Attorney given to Citi by Ameriquest…it appears that Citi is only a “Servicer” which is its own set of issues…BUT….

    I pulled up the 10-K (Annual Report) for Trust 2006 R1 and “Jule Keen” is signing the reports as “Executive Vice President and Authorized Servicing Agent” for Ameriquest/AMC on March 26, 2007…

    On my “Limited POA” it states:

    “After recording, please mail to the attention of:
    “Jule Keen, Executive Vice President, Citi Residential Lending”…

    I found the last piece of the puzzle….

  52. Martin,
    I haven’t read the case you referred to yet. First, I wanted to comment on what you wrote:

    1. “It appears they allege to the Court that in the event of Default, the Note is then assigned and passed physically to the Servicer, basically a temporary owner for the foreclosure event only, who then reassigns it back to the Investor.” [MERS openly states that they do the first part, not sure about the second part being openly stated, but unquestionably that’s what they do]

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME–WITHOUT A DOUBT! And you’re right–that’s straight out of the MERS playbook. In my case, MERS assigned the Deed AND the Note (which BAC has admitted that they didn’t own at the time my complaint was filed) to the servicer, which is BAC.

    And that brings me to…

    2. “If you read the UCC law I posted earlier, it states clear as day, that the Holder in Due Course can only take possession in Good Faith, For Value, and without Notice of a Default. ”

    Like you said, MERS only assigns the Deed/Note FOR THE PURPOSES OF FORECLOSURE, NOT TO GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE OF OWNERSHIP (because there is no change in ownership, as Freddie Mac’s Bostrom admitted in 4closure Fraud’s post below). This is blatantly obvious in my case, when MERS/Recontrust/BAC “assistant secretary” Jill Arnold assigned Deed/Note to BAC, re-appointed Recontrust as Trustee, and sent out a Notice of Sale under the auspices of Recontrust–ALL ON THE SAME DAY.

    This kind of BS would certainly seem to violate the UCC requirements of “good faith” that you mentioned. I also have my doubts as to whether this kind of assignment/transfer would pass the UCC’s “for value” requirement.

    I am somewhat confused by the third part of the UCC’s requirement, i.e. “without notice of default.” Couldn’t MERS just not give BAC notice of default so that this part of the “true assignment” test wouldn’t be an issue? In my case, however, it IS an issue because BAC is the party who declared me to be in default in the first place! So when MERS purports to assign the Note to BAC, BAC is ALREADY AWARE THAT THERE IS “DEFAULT!”

    Holy crap, Martin! You’re a friggin’ gold mine of info! Keep it coming!

  53. 4closure Fraud,
    Great find on the Freddie Mac quote! He just comes right out and confirms the main point of everything Living Lies is all about!

    This is the kind of open secret that judges should be let in on, and fast. Who better to confirm this unbelievable scam than one of the chief scammers!

  54. Okay so I am getting more confused.

    Let me make sure I have what you are telling me correct.

    Your loan was closed by Ameriquest and all documents have them as the lender and servicer in 2005? I can’t remember when this started.

    They assigned the POA to CITI for what? servicing? or as the lender?

    If Citi was only the servicer to collect the payments how did they do the assignment of the note to the trust? If Citi owned the note until it was assigned in march of 09 how did they also report your note as being included in the trust?

    What may need to be checked is the total history of time the loan number is referenced in the trust. If it didn’t get included into the trust until March then AMC would have owned it until Citi took it over and then they deposited it into the trust.

    If they reported the ownership to the trust the entire time but did not assign it to the trust until 09 there is a pretty big discrepancy to start with as to did the true party do the foreclosure.

    So if Citi started the foreclosure then sold the note to the trust in default that is good to dig into. The accounting for the money is also something to question at the same time. What documents did they show in the foreclosure? and how did the BK affect the mortgage? was it excluded or reaffirmed? and who was listed on the BK creditors as the lender?

    It is hard to track without the documents and bouncing around on the board. You will want to track who you signed with at closing, where the payments went, and when the transfers occur to each party. If the note was payable to AMC then to Citi then to the Trust make sure the payments were credited to the correct lender as the progression went forward. If they are showing the payments as credited to the trust the whole time there is a flaw, if they correctly account for the payments at each transfer then the trust didn’t come in until later. The assignments have to match with the lender and who was collecting and crediting the payments.

  55. We had been making payments to AMC and then to Citi until we stopped paying in September 2008…technically the only “lender” on record is Ameriquest since there are no other assignments…

    The only recordings are the “Limited” Power of Attorney going to Citi from Ameriquest and then this assignment to Deutsche…

    We had received our first foreclosure notice in January stating that Citi was starting proceedings…THEN they told me that the loan was being “SOLD”…

    We never received another foreclosure notification and saw the notice in the newspaper with the “new” people…that is the first time that we even learned about this trust after seeing it in the paper…

    With that said…how do you even know if the note was actually assigned to the Trust???

    Citi “assigned” our mortgage to Deutsche Trust in March 2009…I have NO idea when or if the note went to the Trust…

  56. Tracee,

    They typically are required to within a certain timeframe assign the note, maybe 180/270 days at the latest. They do not usually do it until they are ready to foreclose. When is the assign done and when was the action filed against you for the foreclosure? I’m not sure as to if the delay makes a legal issue as it only affected the trust and the investors but was transferred for the sake of the foreclosure. It would though question if the payments went to the correct party of interest if the trust had not been assigned the ownership of the note.

    So hypothetically let’s say that they never assigned the note or the rights to the payment, You have been paying the payments to the servicer which is technically, until the assignment, the lender of record. If they still recorded the payments as credited to the trust instead of themselves for that period of time they gave away your payments as they came in on the obligation to someone else.

    If they haven’t tracked the payments to the correct party for the two or three years leading up to the transfer and subsequent action how can they truly prove to you that you are behind on the payments? They may have with misappropriation of your funds cause you a liability that isn’t correct.

    This should lead to at least a request for an absolute accounting of any and every dime that was collected in reference to your obligation which should include all of the trust, servicer, insurance, escrows, swaps, et al to prove the standing of the amount you technically owe and still again to whom you are in default with.

    Yes I think it is an argument but that I will have to defer to your attorney as I’m sure they picked up on this already.

  57. Martin,

    I have a scribd account, if it would be
    easier for you to send the documents
    ONCE, that you want to share; send them
    to me and I will post them to scribd so
    any one else can view or download.

    Thanks again for your willingness to
    share your legal journey!

    Deontos “dot” is @ gmail “dot” com

  58. Check this out…

    http://bit.ly/FreddieMacComments

    Freddie Mac Comments on the Final Report and Recommendations on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases Florida Supreme Court

    RE: Recommendation regarding verification of “ownership” of the mortgage

    “Typically, the plaintiff in a foreclosure action does not own the underlying note or loan that is secured by the property subject to the foreclosure proceeding. Freddie Mac’s servicers initiate foreclosure actions in their names, even though they are not the owners of the notes or loans in question”

    Robert E. Bostrom
    Freddie Mac
    Executive Vice President
    General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

    4closureFraud

  59. If it spells this out in the Prospectus…

    “The Depositor will deliver to the Trustee (or to a custodian on the Trustee’s behalf) with respect to each
    Mortgage Loan (i) the mortgage note endorsed without recourse in blank to reflect the transfer of the Mortgage
    Loan, (ii) the original mortgage with evidence of recording indicated thereon and (iii) an assignment of the mortgage in recordable form endorsed in blank without recourse, reflecting the transfer of the Mortgage Loan.

    The Seller will make certain representations and warranties as of the Closing Date as to the accuracy in all material respects of certain information furnished to the Trustee with respect to each Mortgage Loan.

    If the cut off date in 02/23/06 and our “assignment” to the Trust is 03/04/09…THREE YEARS after the cut off date…

    Is this a sufficient argument???

  60. J: Sorry!!!

    Go to this site:

    https://tss.sfs.db.com/investpublic/

    On the left under Product Type Choose RMBS

    Choose Ameriquest from the list

    Pick Ameriquest Mortgage Securities

    Scroll down and find 2006 R1

    Then it will give you three tabs at the top: Deal Info, Factors, Reports

    Under Deal info you have the Prospectus Supplement and PP Memo

    Click on “PP Memo” this is why they are not reporting to the SEC…just sick!!!

  61. You all need to read this, its the transcript of the Case where 2 judges blast MERS and their model for assigning Notes in blank, claiming shared ownership of Notes, etc…

    This hammer home my argument that a Note endorsed in Blank, cannot be passed from Investor(Document Custodian) back to the Servicer in the event of default. Which MERS officials were claiming was their lawful right, nut the Judges blast them on the basics of LAW.

    This is why a Servicer has no standing as it is only an agent for the Investor…the Note Holder, the true beneficiary of the Note, as Neil has said time and again.

    It appears they allege to the Court that in the even of Default, the Note is then assigned and passed physically to the Servicer, basically a temporary owner for the foreclosure event only, who then reassigns it back to the Investor.

    I work with a Real Estate Agent who lists properties for Fannie and Freddie, this completely jives with what she asks me. “Why is the house listed as an Asset with Fannie when Countrywide(or Servicer) was the Foreclosing person?”

    If you read the UCC law I posted earlier, it states clear as day, that the Holder in Due Course can only take possession in Good Faith, For Value, and without Notice of a Default.

    Here’s the rub, the Plaintiff’s Attorney will claim to be either the Holder and not the Holder in Due Course, and either way they are asking the Court to grant them Standing to foreclose.

    Can the Plaintiff foreclose on a Note without being the Holder in Due Course?
    Thats the question….I don’t think so. Am I wrong?

    MERS vs. Cabrera et al; Miami-Dade Civil Action 05-02425-CA 05; show cause hearing transcript located at

    http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/MERS1.pdf

  62. Martin,

    I would like them as well.

    jbrode@mac.com

    Tracee,

    Is the link to the Private Placement Memo? It has mostly the same info as the Prospectus upon review.

    I looked at quite a few things and my God I cannot believe people would read this with all the disclosures of pending litigation etc and non recourse provisions and still purchase this junk.

    I would review the non recourse info and the disclaimers with your attorney and see if there isn’t something they admit to that you can use for your benefit. Like most others they have structured the entities and liabilities in such a manner that no one takes responsibility accept for the gullible investors that are being sold worthless junk in a pretty bag with a bow.

    Have you reviewed your loan for violations of TILA, HOEPA or RESPA? Was there any fraud committed in blatant view? If you can’t get any other relief argue non disclosure as Neil outlines as to the true lender, the securitization issues, etc.

    I have come across other issues against Ameriquest and Deutsche Bank in legal manners, maybe review some of the cases for links to things you may be able to allege and use.
    Whatever you do don’t give up!

  63. Martin…

    I would also appreciate a copy of your pleadings…

    Thank You…

    Tracee

    email: traceebeecroft@tds.net

  64. Martin,

    Would you send me copies of your pleadings? I want to see how you have structured these arguments.

    dean@lenderaudits.com

  65. OOPS!!! Try this link instead…

    https://tss.sfs.db.com/investpublic/

  66. J:

    Did you happen to catch the “Private Memorandum” on the top right side here??? Tell me what you think…

    https://tss.sfs.db.com/investpublic/

  67. Tracee,

    I have no clue as to how they posted the pending activity. With a BK I think they have to set it aside until the discharge happens. Maybe in order to keep it on the system they had to toggle it back and forth so that it didn’t kick it out of the reporting. They probably didn’t have another mortgage to replace yours with in the pool either since they stopped doing them altogether.

    So now that we know the certificates still exist and the trust has a trustee what other items can you use to fight the sale?

    I don’t have much knowledge of the BK process so if anyone else can help please chime in. What did you use for the standing for the Quiet Title action?

    If the judge allowed the sale after raising the questions of validity you may have to go back and fight the decision for their lack of standing or accurate assignment process as Martin described.

    Did they present evidence of an original note? If the originator deposited directly into the trust how was it underwritten? Do the trusts not have to follow the chain of events through the acceptance company and underwriting before the transfer to the trust? If I get a minute I will skim through the prospectus on how it is supposed to happen.

    What is the opinion of your attorney? How did the attorney not question and force the accounting and standing of the lender?

    I would think the last thing the judge would want to do is rule in favor of the sale if the question of true ownership of the note is hanging out there.

  68. Even though it is “listed” I am still questioning how it got there since there are no assignments to back it up…

  69. J in CO:

    Thank you so much!!!! But now I have more questions about this nightmare from hell…

    I went through each monthly statement in 2009 and here it is…

    January ’09: Could not find loan in statement…
    February ’09: Listed as becoming foreclosure “This Period”…
    March ’09: Listed as becoming foreclosure “This Period” once again…
    April ’09: Listed as becoming Foreclosure “Prior Period”…
    May ’09: Listed as becoming Foreclosure “This Period”…again…
    June ’09: Could not find our loan in statement…
    July ’09: Could not find our loan in statement…
    August ’09: Could not find our loan in statement…
    September ’09: Listed as becoming Foreclosure “This period”…
    October ’09: Listed as becoming Foreclosure in “Prior Period”…

    We filed our BK in May with discharge in August…which could maybe explain why it was not listed over those months…OR…

    Shouldn’t our loan have been listed in the “Prior Period” column over those months that the BK was in effect???

    This makes NO sense to me whatsoever why we are listed in different columns in different months…

  70. Tracee,

    Something happened with my last post so I’ll try again.

    I found your info. Go to this site:

    https://tss.sfs.db.com/investpublic/

    On the left under Product Type Choose RMBS

    Choose Ameriquest from the list

    Pick Ameriquest Mortgage Securities

    Scroll down and find 2006 R1

    Then it will give you three tabs at the top: Deal Info, Factors, Reports

    Under Deal info you have the Prospectus Supplement and PP Memo

    Then under Reports you will find your October Statements

    You have the statement and the loan level excel file that you can search for your loan number. It sometimes is faster to look for your city state and zipcode than the loan number.

    This should give you what you need to account for the loan.

    Let me know if you need any other help! Happy scrolling.

  71. Tracee,

    I started searching based on the CUSIP number while I’m waiting for my contact and found this:
    http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/media/Subprime_loss_projections_07_22_09.pdf

    It shows the main certificate in your trust and lists the estimated loss as 16.32% and comes from the S&P ratings. With this I would say the Certificates are still alive and being traded. Whether your loan is still in this I don’t know but it is a start to see that it is still out there trading and rated.

  72. Dan,

    Can you send that to me so I can see what you found. I have a loan with Chrysler and want to beat them with a stick over their collection procedures. It is a corporate loan which made it tough to complain about with the AG but if I could find a way to make them at least have to give me info for the fun of it I would do it.

    email is jbrode@mac.com

  73. One thing I have learned in the Information Technology industry is that “security by obscurity” is no security at all. Here are comments from my prospectus for my auto loan securitization:

    In connection with the exercise of remedies in relation to Defaulted Receivables, various factors, such as the Issuing Entity not having perfected security interests in the Financed Vehicles in all states or state and federal laws protecting defaulting consumers from repossession of their vehicles, may affect the Master Servicer’s ability to repossess and sell the collateral securing such Defaulted Receivables, and thus may reduce the proceeds which the Issuing Entity can distribute to Noteholders. See “Material Legal Issues Relating to the Receivables” in the prospectus.

    Because the master servicer will continue to service the receivables, the obligors on the receivables will not be notified of the sales from the originator to the depositor or from the depositor to the issuing entity, and no action will be taken to record the transfer of the security interest from the originator to the depositor or from the depositor to the issuing entity by amendment of the certificates of title for the Financed Vehicles or otherwise.

    No perfection of interest. Here is another thing: I found that the borrowers are all being sued by the ORIGINATOR. None of the borrowers knows that they are being sued by a party who SOLD THE LOAN.

    You should see the nice little flowchart diagram they have in their prospectus.

    Not much different from MERS and home loan securitizations is it?

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

  74. Tracee,

    I found the info I need, Give me a little time and I’ll let you know what I find.

  75. Tracee,

    What I can’t seem to find on the SEC search is anything about your trust at all. Each time I search I keep getting the one that is the 2006 M3. If I could get a CUSIP number from your actual trust I could run it with a friend of mine and see if anything close is still trading.

    Let me know if I’m missing something or send me a link to the old info.

  76. Here is the link to ALL reports filed for this particular trust…they were only filing reports for 14 months…

    http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001352650&owner=exclude&count=40

  77. Martin,

    Thanks, Well put!

    Each case is different in the argument but it is all still the same. They will never have the right to enforce because they were sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. The only fear is if the Judges are not up to speed yet on what is happening in the world.

    Here’s to hoping I’m the first one in my district that can convince the Judge and that the rest can be ushered in like cattle after me.

    Here’s to hoping there will be others that take the initiative to be the first to challenge as well!!!!

  78. They could have very well transferred to another Trust…but they are foreclosing as “Trustee” for this Ameriquest Trust from the looks of things has died…

    “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company , as Trustee in Trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006 R-1, Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates 2006 R-1”

  79. Tracee,

    I guess the part I would question is if the “stock” is classified the same as the Certificates for the trusts. The securities world is where I start to lose my grip on the rules and haven’t been down that road far enough.

    My understanding from their position on the certificates is that loan substitutions are common and allowable to keep the trust refreshed over the time period. This way if they retire a certain amounts of the classes or the trust all together, they can still pull, hold and add the remaining loans to a new series of securities.

    Just because the trust died doesn’t mean they didn’t transfer your asset to another one. Think of this analogy, you take all the crumbled tortilla chips in the bottom of a bag and make some funky casserole out of it and try to sell it to your customers.

    They will re-bundle and trade dogs*&t as long as they can get it rated and they can make money.

    The main thing as I see it is if they really owned the rights to your loan to begin with regardless of the ruling. If they cannot prove the ownership or damage you caused by not paying how can they enforce?

  80. Bearer paper and a Promissory Note to a Mortgage endorsed in Blank are simply not the same concept. Plaintiff’s are stretching this theory. Use the case law on this Site and UCC Code!

    Judge Bufford(“Whiskey bottle….”) said:
    “A Promissory Note cannot be admitted into evidence unless it can be authenticated. Federal Rules of Evidence 901(a) provides: The requirement of authentication…as condition precedent to the admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that a matter in question is what its proponent claims.

    Now take Judge Schacks memorandum in Deusch Bank vs Castellanos regarding the seperation of Notes and Mortgages and Power of Attorney.

    To have a proper assignment of a mortgage by an authorized agent, a power of attorney is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the authority to assign the mortgage. “No special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it. [Emphasis added].” (Tawil v Finkelstein Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 223 AD2d 52, 53 [1d Dept 1996]; see Suraleb v International Trade Club., Inc., 13 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2004]). To foreclose on a mortgage, a party must have title to the mortgage. The instant assignment, without a recorded corporate resolution or power of attorney is a nullity. The Appellate Division, Second Department (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]), held that a “foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.” The Appellate Division, First Department, citing Kluge v Fugazy, (Katz v East Ville Realty Co., 249 AS2d 243 [1st Dept 1998]), instructed that “[p]laintiff’s attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which he had no legal or equitable interest was without foundation in law or fact.”

    Now read the UCC carefully and interpret this for the Court.

    UCC Law – Holder in Due Course
    a) Subject to subsection (c) and Section 3-106(d), “holder in due course” means the holder of an instrument if:
    ◦ (1) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and
    ◦ (2) the holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section 3-306, and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305(a).
    ◦ (c) Except to the extent a transferor or predecessor in interest has rights as a holder in due course, a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy, or creditor’s sale or similar proceeding, (ii) by purchase as part of a bulk transaction not in ordinary course of business of the transferor, or (iii) as the successor in interest to an estate or other organization.

    The Plaintiffs will try to purport that the Mortgage follows the Note, and justify their Blank endorsements and Fraudulent assignments, because its enough to get past most Courts, UNLESS THE DEFENDANT IS CHALLENGING THEM AT EVERY TURN!

    This is a game of Politics as well. What public officer(elected Judge) wants to ignore Black Letter Law in the face of an angry homeowner who knows their rights and carefully and timely drafts his/her pleadings in the present day? Far less Judges are looking at homeowners as scum, and are raising an eye at Fraud on the Court.

    I realize these are different Jurisdictions and not controlling to specific states, but these are Superior Court Judges, in high profile cases….use them to sell your defense to the Court.

    **Not legal advice, just info, imho.

  81. I forgot to add that Form 15 which is a Certificate of Notice of Termination of Registration and Suspension of Duty to file Reports was issued on 01/2007 which basically prohibits stock trading for this trust…

    The final nail in the coffin I would say….

  82. J in CO:

    This is located on the SEC site…

    Defunct Company, Stock Continues to Trade

    You may have noticed ongoing trading in the stock of a company that is no longer in business. Often, information about trades and quotations in these stocks are widely available. Companies that are no longer operating may still have outstanding registered stock. A stock can be traded until the company has the shares deregistered or the stock’s registration is revoked. The SEC does not have a rule that prohibits the trading of stock once a company becomes defunct.

    Trading stocks v. publishing quotations in stocks. Rule 15c2-11 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits broker-dealers from publishing a quotation for a security (an offer to buy or sell) unless they have reviewed specified information about the company. Specifically, the Rule regulates when broker-dealers may publish a quotation in a stock in quotation mediums, such as the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board and the Pink Sheets. The Rule does not, however, address when a stock can be traded between two broker-dealers. As a result, you may see that trading has occurred in a stock even though the company is no longer in business and quotations in the stock are not actively published.

    Under an exception to Rule 15c2-11, a broker-dealer may publish quotations for a stock without reviewing information about the company if there are regular and continuous quotations published for a specified period of time by broker-dealers that did have the appropriate information. Although a company has become defunct, its stock may still be quoted under this exception-often called the “piggy-back” exception-to the Rule. In addition, if a company becomes defunct after quotations in the stock are published for the specified time period, the broker-dealer is not obligated to acquire current information on the company.

    The SEC may invoke a trading suspension. In some cases, the SEC will suspend trading (or the Nasdaq or NYSE may halt trading) in the stock of an issuer that is a defunct company if, for example, the SEC believes that public information about the issuer is materially false or misleading or the stock price appears to be manipulated. During a trading suspension, no broker-dealer may trade the security. When the trading suspension terminates, a broker-dealer wishing to publish quotations must comply with Rule 15c2-11, which may be impossible to do in the case of a defunct company.

    The SEC may revoke the registration of stocks. In some circumstances, the SEC may revoke the registration of a defunct company’s stock pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act. Under Section 12(j), the SEC is authorized to revoke the registration of a security if it fails to comply with the federal securities laws. No broker-dealer may execute any trades in stocks whose registration has been revoked pursuant to Section 12(j).

    A defunct company may not have a transfer agent. In some situations, the defunct company does not have a transfer agent. Although the federal securities laws do not require a company to have a transfer agent, if a company does not have a transfer agent, investors are unable to receive or transfer their stock certificates. Sometimes the SEC has considered a company’s lack of a transfer agent as a factor in whether to revoke the registration of stock pursuant to Section 12(j) for the protection of investors.

    http://www.sec.gov/answers/dfnctco.htm

    This is HUGE!!!!

  83. Freeclearhome,

    Keep everything they send to you for reference of the fraud they will surely commit. For the proof of the endorsement check and see if the Depositor bank has a Loan Seller’s Guide that you can review. Mine had the specific requirements that state:

    “H. Notes

    Unless notified to the contrary by Washington Mutual, the note must be endorse to blank. ”

    Under the MERS instructions:

    ” In lieu of registering loans with MERS, the Company must prepare an assignment of mortgage to “blank”, and in accordance with this Section 501.02 A. ”

    These among other instructions are the requirements set forth in order for this lender to accept and underwrite the loans for acceptance to the Trust. In my state(CO) the state U.C.C. code reads:

    “(b) If an indorsement is made by the holder of an instrument and it is not a special indorsement, it is a “blank indorsement.” When indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.”

    This helps if there is no absolute original as the lender cannot leave the door open behind himself as to a “bearer” of the instrument coming in after the fact to collect.

    Your state may be different and it would be good to verify the state statute if you will be in front of a district court. If no differentiation then refer to the the UCC.

    If you catch them fraudulently conveying the note and you posses the first one with no assignment to prove misdeeds or other fraud in the process of the loan you can try to show that they have “unclean hands” and thus unable to bring an action against you.

    The part that gets me about all of this is that these rules were created for negotiating checks and bearer bonds etc. I cannot believe that no protect existed for challenging the ability to transfer such complicated and so called “negotiable instruments” They are in no way easily negotiable without proper accounting and good faith and fair dealings.

    Do you think a bank would take a check with endorsements that cover the entire back of a check without proof of the assignments from each party?

    Have you ever tried to negotiate a check for cash when a business name was involved and you had no account relationship with the bank? It is next to impossible. If you have a relationship that still hold the right to set off until it clears the other side undisputed.

    In this instance you need to be the one that puts a “stop payment” on the check.

    Martin, chime in with more on where you are coming from as well as I am only going off of my state statute and there are very good arguments in the UCC as well. One of the ones I brought up was:

    3-302(c)(iii) ” a person does not acquire rights of holder in due course of an instrument taken as successor in interest to an estate or other organization”

    I interpret that as the trusts in many instances were taken through succession from the ones that were shut down. If they created by their own admission a blank endorsement and did not assign them correctly down the chain to prove their holder in due course status they cannot enforce as noted in 3-305(c)

    Anyway, I could argue all day about this so I will shut up now. If you want to read and interpret the UCC here is a link that I use:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/overview.html#3-202

  84. Martin,

    Please do post the relevant section of the UCC law regarding
    the blank endorsement (“Payable to Bearer”) of notes and why
    you think such blank endorsement is unlawful.

    I am afraid my loan servicer will attempt the same thing. I have a
    copy of the original note they recently provided to me which is not
    endorsed to the current owner. I am worried they will produce
    another version of this note, or perhaps add an allonge that states
    the note is “Payable to Bearer” so that whoever has physical
    possession of the note is the present holder (like a blank check).

    FreeClearHome@aol.com

  85. Let’s not forget that many circuit court judges won’t hear of Pooling and Servicing requirements as superseding state law.

    Heck, let’s not forget that any circuit court judges won’t hear of defense firmly cemented in unambiguous state law.

    My personal opinion as a layman (ie: not an attorney) and in a judical state: is that one should stick with the state Statutes (laws) and the state’s Rules of Civil Procedure. Plan for the long haul. Plan for a possible loss. Plan for that appeal on the merits of the case. Plan for those merits from day one (I missed my chance on this one due to sheer ignorance and abject terror.)

    Lean heavily on the law and let it prop up your case in the event a 911 – appeal is needed.

    Good luck to all!

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

  86. Let’s not forget that the note and mortgage had to have been transferred to the trust within the contractually and legally prescribed time line, thereby making the post default assignments questionable at best and arguably null and void. So who is the true holder of the note now?

  87. MARTIN:

    Damn!!! Martin are you sure you are not an attorney, you sound a hell of a lot better than the clown attorney I had representing me, i fired his (*&^% for being incompetent and stupid and money hungry only. I don’t know what the hell to do anymore to find a competent attorney anymore, they’re all dumb and simply looking to make an easy buck, many of them don’t even know the terminology i use while talking to them about securitization and stuff.

    Any advise on where to find a “real” and competent attorney? I am in OC southern ca.

    any help will be greatly appreciated, running out of time here very quickly!!

    for your help, i thank you in advance.

  88. Lisa E,

    Checked out your site as well… Looks like a great place for homeowners and attorneys alike to share and exchange ideas…

    Keep up the good work!

    4closureFraud
    1-561-880-LIES
    http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/

  89. Lisa E.,
    Good thing you challenged them–sounds like you caught them with their pants down. You’d think the Boyko decision two years ago would’ve put a stop to assignments AFTER filing a foreclosure suit. But I guess the hubris of the pretender lenders works to our advantage…

    Checked out your site, by the way. Looks promising!

  90. I thought I was the one who was mixed up!

    Let’s see.

    Assignment: MERs as nominee of original “lender” assigns Mortgage over to Plaintiff 3 months after foreclosure case is filed. Oh, it’s never recorded, not even to this day.

    Notes: THREE different “copies” all of the same alleged “original’ per Plaintiff’s filings with the court. One is not indorsed. Two are indorsed to a party who is NOT the Plaintiff.

    So, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..

    Per Plaintiff’s own documents: Plaintiff owns the Mortgage by post-dated assignment but note was indorsed over to a third party?

    I still don’t get it?

    How is Plaintiff foreclosing?

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org

  91. The only “assignment” recorded is an assignment from the “Originator” directly to the Trust (A to D) from Ameriquest by Citi Residential Lending attorney in fact to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company , as Trustee in Trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006 R-1, Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates 2006 R-1 executed on 03/04/09 with an EFFECTIVE DATE OF 02/28/2009 which was prepared by DOCX in Georgia with Linda Green signing as “VP” and Tywanna Thomas signing as “Asst. VP”.

    That gives me something to go on…even if they were “absorbed” by other trusts, the question still remains if this is even a valid trust…

    Thanks again!!!

  92. Tracee,

    They stop reporting to the SEC for status but I think they still issue Bond reports to investors.

    I tried to look up the reports on the Deutsche website which has an investors portal but could only find their trusts not any as trustee. They should have some way of hosting the reports for the investors.

    There R classification, I think(meant to be taken as I could be wrong), is for the REMIC class and has some tax qualifications that I am not sure of. On a google search I saw various notes as to the r classes getting consolidated into other bundles upon liquidation.

    The trust may have been absorbed into another trust once the number of mortgages dwindled down over time or due to ratings dropping down.

    I couldn’t find your specific trust only a 2006 M3 on the SEC info.

    If the R-1 is a REMIC there is an article on securitization.net about Re-REMICs which I think means that they take the leftover pieces and Re-bundle and rate them to sell again.

    I am starting to get beyond the scope of my understanding, wish I could help more.

  93. MARTIN,

    can you e mail me at bootsaniel1952@yahoo.com. i am also drafting my pleading against the attorney for countrywide here in ca for filing relief from automatic stay in BK court which was granted by the judge. i found out that this law firm is also a debt collectors but there was no disclosure that they are indeed a debts collectors.. i called this attorney representing the bank and i told her i am going to file a lawsuit against the firm. this will be my 3rd lawsuit against my lenders which 2 are pending and the one is with the BAP ninth district court.

  94. If they are no longer required to file then how do we ask for the SEC docs in our Discovery???

    This Trust quit reporting in 2007 yet are still doing business and foreclosing…

    Something smells…

  95. Tracee,

    I think they stop having to file reports after a certain time even if they still exist. I think it is like two or three years after they are created or hit other requirements.

    If they still have the old info on and have some recent reports, you may be able to grab a CUSIP number from one of the certificate classes and do a search.

    I think there is some way to look up the Trustee reports somehow. I have a few minutes let me sniff around and see if I can find a few links. Look on the sec site for your trust and see if they have any numbers or old references to the securities.

  96. I just heard back from the email that I sent to the SEC about my question regarding Ameriquest no longer being in business..Here is his response…

    “I am not sure if it is still in existence. They are no longer required to file statements with the SEC. You should contact the company for an answer to your question”…

    hmmmm………

  97. Does anyone know what actually happens to these “Trusts” when the “Originator/Lender” is no longer in business??? They are no longer required to file with the SEC…

    We are dealing with an Ameriquest 2006 R-1 Trust for which Deutsche is foreclosing as “Trustee” for this trust…

    Can this Trust still be in existence if Ameriquest is no longer in business???

    Where do you look for the info besides the SEC???

    Thanks

    Tracee Beecroft

    email: traceebeecroft@tds.net

  98. Those who would like a copy of my Pro Se response to Motion for Summary Judgment, my Motion for Sanctions, and my response to the Plaintiff’s objection.

    For entertainment purposes only!!! Not legal advice…consult and attorney.

    just shoot me an email:

    mmacisso@hotmail.com

  99. We submitted many of the similar assignments as exhibits arguing that the signature discrepancies were an indication of fraud…Douche Bank attorney stated “I don’t sign my name the same way two times in a row”…

    We also need to bring up the “Multiple Hat” issue…

  100. Also, make sure you do a title search on your property, I had 2 old mortgages still reporting in MERS names….they failed to release them when they issued 2 more new mortgage liens.

    Are they double dipping?

    Slander of title?

    Who knows, the only way to find is Quiet title, which I am also asking the Court for in my Demands.

  101. I forgot to mention this was done Non Judicial and is not even registered with MERS!!!

    DOCX is based in Alpharetta Georgia

    How does this all fit together?!?!?

    Thanks

    Tracee

  102. This was done Non Judicial…complete sham!!!

  103. I forgot to mention that this is not even registered with MERS…

  104. Tracee,

    What state are you in?
    Was it a Judicial or Non-Judicial Foreclosure?

    I personally can’t help; but if some one from your
    “State” sees your post, they may have some insight.

  105. This is one of the allegations I made in my federal complaint. I used the master/servant rule. I stated that MERS is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his employee.

    Alina

  106. Martin,
    You can email me at mreggs@eggsistense.com. This is zurenarrh, by the way. I somehow got unsubscribed to WordPress comments or something and signed in with my own WordPress account that I almost forgot I had. So if it says “eggsistense” at the top of my post instead of “zurenarrh,” just know that “eggs” and “zur” are the same person.

  107. I am feeling like shit on the bottom of a shoe after Douche Bank got a free lunch today and “purchased” our house at the sheriff sale for $140,000 when the “mortgage and arrears” they claimed we owed was $297K and some change.

    How the hell are they able to buy it back so cheap???

    We had two tries at a TRO based on the assignment to Deutsche, but the Judge ruled that we would not be “harmed” by allowing the sale to occur since we have a six month redemption period and title does not transfer until after that time. They even had the balls to march in and ask for a bond equivalent to our arrears and a continued monthly mortgage payment to the tune of $23K which could/should be a violation of the BK discharge.

    Furthermore, they misrepresented what we actually “owe” by stating we owed 13 months of payments, when in actuality they were “assigned” the mortgage 6 months in arrears…

    Took out the mortgage with Ameriquest on 12/23/05…never new it would be securitized…

    The ONLY document recorded is a Limited Power of Attorney given to Citi Residential Lending in 2007…

    There are NO assignments in to the trust (A to D per the Trust requirements) recorded either…I will get discuss my theory on the trust in a bit.

    The only “assignment” recorded is an assignment from the “Originator” directly to the Trust (A to D) from Ameriquest by Citi Residential Lending attorney in fact to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company , as Trustee in Trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Trust 2006 R-1, Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates 2006 R-1 executed on 03/04/09 with an EFFECTIVE DATE OF 02/28/2009 which was prepared by DOCX in Georgia with Linda Green signing as “VP” and Tywanna Thomas signing as “Asst. VP”.

    BUT when Deutsche tried to lift our automatic stay in BK, they submitted their “bylaws” trying to prove these two had authority to execute this assignment which states “Effective July 1, 2008 Linda Green and Tywanna Thomas were elected as Vice President and Assistant Secretary of “AHMSI” (who is now our “servicer”)…two problems with this that I can see…

    First, are these people working on both sides of the transaction by having “authority to sign” for AHMSI and then AHMSI is now servicing.

    Second, Our particular mortgage assignment, in addition to having an earlier “effective date” is signed by Tywanna Thomas as “Assistant Vice President” and not “Assistant Secretary” per the “Bylaws”.

    I am not sure if our mortgage is in this “Trust” and here is why…

    From what I understand (I think) there cannot be an assignment directly to the Trust from the Originator (A to D) which is what we have going on. It needs to be assigned several times in order to be a “True Sale” in to the Trust. A (originator), B (sponsor), C (depositor) and D (Trust) alphabet players. The other primary but non-designated player in my alphabet game is the Master Document Custodian (MDC) for the Trust. The MDC is entrusted with the physical custody of all of the “original” notes and mortgages and the assignment, sales and purchase agreements. The MDC must also execute representations and attestations that all of the transfers really and truly occurred “on time” and in the required “order” and that “true sales” occurred at each link in the chain.

    That said, once again there is no recorded documents of this actually happening with my mortgage…

    Here is a second “more intriguing” part of the puzzle…

    I have checked the SEC site for this particular Trust and found a Form 15-15D which is a Notice of Termination of Registration from 01/07 and the last 8K and 10K were filed in 04/07.

    There are no other documents to support that this trust is even in existence anymore since Ameriquest itself is gone.

    My question is this…

    How/where do I find out if this Trust still exists, and is there other resources to consider???

    We have filed a Quiet Title action on these bastards…I need all of the advice/input possible so I can get all of the pieces of the puzzle in place to reverse the sheriff sale and keep my house…

    This has been so completely draining on my family and marriage…we have three young kids with the youngest being 13 months…all I do is cry when I look at my kids and I feel so hopeless to stop this.

    Our Attorney bills are eating us alive as well…

    I think I “get it” but yet I need help putting it all together…

    Please Help!!!!

    Thank You…

    Tracee Beecroft

    email: traceebeecroft@tds.net

  108. Martin,

    PLEASE send what ever it is you deem to share.
    I have MERS on my back and Countrywide in the
    Shadows.

    Deontos dot is @ gmail dot com

  109. Great I will email what I have filed to whomever is in a similar battle vs MERS/Countrywide/BOA.

    I think sometimes the most simple way to defend, is to use basic Law, the Attorney has used Fraudulent Documents, literally translated, a document misrepresenting the facts with intent to harm the defendant.

    A fraudulent document, is any document submitted to the Court, sworn to as true, and it is simply a falsification of the facts.

    Any MERS officer, is not. No matter what the MERS membership guidelines purport.

    Rule 11 Sanctions are specifically designed to slap Attorneys for such misconduct. Such as fraud, frivolity, and general misrepresentation (Nosek vs Ameriquest).

    Anyone can move the Court to Sanction the Plaintiff and Counsel. Then the burden is on them to prove there is NO Fraud.

    The way I see it, even if you defeat these Pretenders, get a Motion for Summary Judgment denied or a case dismissed….then you waive your claims for damages against such misconduct. Of course, the Real Party, or another Pretender will eventually pop up and restart the process. Slam them with Sanctions and let the fireworks begin!

    Give me a few hours to email you guys with my stuff, of course, this is not legal advice. Consult an attorney for that stuff.

  110. All I have to say on this post is read the guide below…

    Do the research and see for yourself…

    http://bit.ly/ForeclosureFrauds

    4closureFraud

  111. Martin,
    I am in Connecticut, in foreclosure in Middletown.
    Would you please email me, I would like to talk to you.
    Thanks.
    Alison
    alisonlhatheway@yahoo.com

  112. Martin,
    I am also dealing with Countrywide/BAC on a MERS Deed of Trust in the non-judicial foreclosure state of MIssissippi. A woman named Jill Arnold signed three different documents purportedly as an “assistant secretary” for 3 different companies (BAC, MERS, and Recontrust): my assignment, my notice of sale, and my “re-appointment of trustee.”

    BAC and Recontrust are both owned by Bank of America, and BAC is a member of the MERS mafia.

    Here’s the breakdown of Jill “Trinity” Arnold’s signatures:

    -she signed the Notice of Sale as “assistant secretary” for Recontrust.

    -she signed the assignment as “assistant secretary” for MERS and the language in the notary’s statement says that Jill Arnold”s the assistant secretary of MERS as Nominee for Countrywide Bank, FSB, and that for and on behalf of the said corporation, and as its act and deed she executed the above and foregoing instrument AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY SAID CORPORATION SO TO DO.” (I assume the all-caps portion should be verified by a power of attorney?)

    -she signed the “Re-Appointment of Trustee” for BAC…I’m not sure why they thought this document was even necessary since they merely “re-appointed” the trustee that was already named in the Deed of Trust.

    Now I have concluded that Jill Arnold is actually employed by Recontrust, mostly because Shameca Harrison, the Texas notary that was used for all three of these documents, uses Recontrust’s address in the Texas registry of notaries.

    So it’s very interesting–by which I mean fraudulent and criminal–that an employee of Recontrust would “re-appoint” Recontrust as trustee but have the Recontrust employee sign the “re-appointment” as though that Recontrust employee were an employee of BAC in order to create the appearance of legitimacy. Of course, this is after that same Recontrust employee pretended to be a MERS employee when assigning the mortgage (and the Note) to BAC.

    One more thing that strikes me about this that I can’t quite adequately express is this:

    All of these documents were signed and dated on the same day meaning that all of these actions signed off on by Jill Arnold apparently were supposed to happen SIMULTANEOUSLY. But how can BAC–who didn’t own the Note/Deed until assigned them by Jill Arnold–SIMULTANEOUSLY decide to “re-appoint” Recontrust as Trustee and SIMULTANEOUSLY give Recontrust authority to auction off the property? Does that make any sense?

    In other words, how are the “re-appointment” and notice of sale documents simultaneously ready for Jill Arnold to sign at the exact same time that BAC officially is “assigned” the property by Jill Arnold? The whole scam might have been a little more believable if they’d done the assignment and then waited at least a day or two (if not weeks or months) before having Jill sign the “re-appointment” and the notice of sale, which would at least give the appearance of BAC officially owning the Note/Deed and THEN deciding that they want to re-appoint and sell at auction. However, the fact that they had all documents prepared and signed on the same day by Jill Arnold is a strong indication (to me, anyway) that the transfer of ownership (i.e., assignment) was illegitimate and done only to try to validate the notice of sale and the “re-appointment.”

    I definitely think the following charges should be brought against MERS/Recontrust/BAC: slander of title, wire fraud, mail fraud, and forgery for starters. I really like Martin’s idea of going after them for civil conspiracy, which is all MERS is.

  113. MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners who sought to block foreclosures in Minnesota, but their attorney said the case led to significant progress anyway.

    The lawsuit claimed the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, which helps struggling homeowners refinance their mortgages, failed to give people proper notice when they were rejected or the right to appeal.

    U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery dismissed the case Monday, saying Congress did not make loan modifications an entitlement or establish due process requirements.
    Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

    Mark Ireland, an attorney for the homeowners, said Tuesday that they’re disappointed and will decide later whether to appeal.

    But Ireland said the Treasury Department has adopted regulations since the homeowners filed the lawsuit in July that address some of the concerns they raised. He said Treasury now requires that loan servicing companies collect data on denials, provide written notices of denials within 10 days, halt foreclosures when homeowners challenge denials and provide homeowners with some of the data that went into servicers’ decisions.

    Still, he said, the process isn’t as transparent as it should be.

  114. Martin,

    Is your Case available on the internet?
    Would like to read the file.
    VERY. VERY INTERESTING.

  115. Martin,

    I applaud you for where you are going with your case. I am going to attack in similar fashion on mine. The first thing I did was attack the attorney’s Certification by Qualified Holder and I think it scared her. She called on my other loan that was rescinded and tried to intimidate me telling me that the assignments don’t need to be recorded and I point blank told her that I understood that point but they have to at least be created and I have the right to see them for inspection.

    She hurried off the phone shortly after now I am waiting on the judge to rule on my Motion to Dismiss.

    I would love to see how you structured your pleadings and motions if you’re willing to share. You can email to me at jbrode@mac.com if you are.

    I am going to be on them at every step and watch them keep messing up.

  116. Martin What state are you in?
    thanx

  117. I agree! Why not just go for CONTEMPT CHARGES AS WELL? I’ve ended up with two recusals and NO ONE TO HELP! Even though I had bankers to do something to help me they don”t know how to do business. Their LIARS AND THIEVES. Trust me…THERE’S NO CONSPIRACY TO IT! Have they yet brought out the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST? oR tried to sweep them under the rug in your case as well? Check out different notes to see the difference in how good they try to elabaorate FRAUD! I’M JUST AMAZED…I definitely will never try to do anything in the financial arena again. Your just made out to be the BAD GUY FOR TELLING THE TRUTH!

  118. I am dealing with a fabricated, forged and fraudulent assignment in my case. Among the issues are these that I just discovered in the past week, and this after having the document for the past 18 months (sometimes all it takes is a fresh look or another set of eyes to find new information).

    The addresses for both the assignor and the assignee are not accurate.

    I previously had no information to suggest or support that MERS is involved in my case. The assignor named is not MERS but the address it has listed for itself is the address of MERS.

    The address listed for the assignee is also inaccurate. The assignee has chosen to list as its address the real address of the assignor.

    I hope that hasn’t confused anyone. ALL of this can be, and often is, confusing.

    Whatever the status of your own case or issues DO continue to review your documents, to read and re-read your own and opposing parties pleadings. It is always possible you’ve missed something – and this no matter how many times you’ve already looked at it/them. Allowing a knwledgeable friend or contact to review them also helps. A fresh and different set of eyes will often see things you haven’t noticed.

  119. What most aren’t realizing is this. Anyone beyond the originating lender is a third party. Being a top bill collector I figured this out over a yr ago. The judges are running from the implications. Their ENDORSING FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. MY OWN ATTY ACTS LIKE I’M NOT WORKING FOR THE COURT IN MY ENDEAVOR.

    To me it doesn’t matter who you are. When your DENIED HONEST REPRESENTATION, Then a corrupt judge on top of it what do they want you to do? I choose not to do suicide.

    Two of the top foreclosure mill attys nationally owns the former business I used to work with. They encouraged me to break the law continually. Damit I want a change! I WANT CORRUPT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES BEHIND BARS.

    I may be an unknown to most but am solid in knowing who I AM. If anyone is interested in really helping let me know! I’m here alot. I don’t mind being a witness. They never did ask for the paycheck stubs just sent on to another corrupt judge…

  120. I have a case where I have Moved for Sanctions for Fraud, Civil Conspiracy and Frivolity, all based on this MERS/Countrywide fraudulent “officer” scheme. They provided a sworn Affidavit by a person who claimed to be AVP for 2 seperate Countrywide entities, and also admitted to the Court, in their objection, that Carrie Hoover was an officer of Countrywide signing for MERS.

    I have used Judge Schack, where he states that any assignment from Assignee to Assignor who is the same party is conflict of interest and VOID.
    However, I am going further to prove the Attorney is an agent in this fraud as well. I’m going after Counsel.

    So far, the Court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, but they offer nothing new in their argument, just a plea for reconsideration, which I objected to.

    I moved for Sanctions because it was too late to apply for amended Counterclaim. Rule 11 sanctions are great for going after Attorney fraud. The attorneys are Schetman, Halperin Savage out of CT and they represent all the huge banks.
    Now they are claiming the Note is endorsed in blank, and therefore payable to whoever holds(bearer). This is false. I have the UCC laws to back up my claim. I can post them if need be. Also, Judge Bufford backs this up by saying “You cannot pass Notes around like a whiskey bottle at a frat party.” They are only evidence if they can be authenticated by Witness and not after the fact.

    How can an Attorney, who already provided a sworn Affidavit, in stead of an endorsed Note, in Motion for Summary Judgment, now claim to have a new version of the Note(endorsed in Blank, not notarized, not authenticated or certified or even dated) NOW CLAIM that SHE, the Attorney, holds the Note.
    They are essentially purporting that BOA will now claim to Hold the Note, because they bought Countrywide as a White Knight. (Objection, not possible per UCC code)
    Another head scratcher, the Attorney also claimed, the Plaintiff(whoever it is, no POA has been submitted) they state Countrywide, has been the Holder of the Note all along, because America’s Wholesale Lender is a trade name for Countrywide.

    I have not even begun the argument(based on Pagano vs America’s Wholesale Lender) that you cannot bring a lawsuit forward in a fictitious trade name, nor substitute parties, nor transfer Notes.
    This is where the case becomes interesting. The note/mortgage was executed to a fictitious entity, and then subsequently transfered by another strawman (MERS), using double Agents, to Countrywide Home Loans and then to Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP and soon to be, BOA.

    My motion for Sanctions, included a Memorandum of Law, citing Nosek vs Ameriquest and a couple Judge Schack cases, essentially calling out this behavior as FRAUD ON THE COURT.
    The REAL party in interest being a MBS Trust with Certificate holders who may claim interest in the REAL NOTE.

    The more the Plaintiff’s Counsel retorts, the further they seem to hang themselves, as ITS CLEAR that a Trust has control and possession of the actual Note and Mortgage Assignment, however, the Plaintiff will not furnish the Court with a Pooling Servicing Agreement. I have moved to Compel Discovery and Deem Admissions.

    So, the Court is sitting on my 2 motions, (Sanctions and Compel), at the Hearing for Summary Judgment, I blasted Counsel for only providing Hearsay and NO Power of Attorney or EVIDENCE. I stood strong on my Affidavit that I was NOT IN DEFAULT of the Note and Mortgage.

    The Judge subsequently denied Summary Judgment, because Plaintiff could not prove it was holder of the Note and that I was in Default.

    So, because the Doorway to the Courtroom is blocked(No Standing) Plaintiff’s Counsel’s is now submitting ONLY HEARSAY.

    The last Pleading I filed was a Discovery Request asking for MERS complete Chain of Title regarding their “E Registry” that tracks “ENotes”. I know they will object, but I want to make it CLEAR TO THE COURT, that there is a whole other world behind their backs.
    Where was the Note/Mortgage the 2 years between their executions and the alleged Default? The Land Records and MERS Records will tell different stories. Which will inevitably lead to more Fraud.

    While the whole time, the REAL Note/Mortgage, was assigned to a MBS Trust, somewhere out there. This simple fact, should be enough to prove that Counsel is misrepresenting facts to the Court, which is FRAUD, worthy of Sanctions for Punitive Damages.

    Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: